
Class _iiA 
Book I '1 



Gopyii^htN?. 



i ^ i ^ . 



dj 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIR 




HS^Jv^^sJ^ 



THE LIFE OF 

Henry Labotichrrf 



BY 

ALGAR l^AiiULiCHERE THOROLD 

HenryAfaboujghere 

From a pH'cfSg^pS^'^y "Messrs. Brogi^TS Florence 
taken in 1905 at Villa Christina, Florence 



G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 

NEW YORK AND LONDON 

ttbe •Rnlcftetbocfter press 





ooris'iol 





HJoJv^sJ^ 



THE LIFE OF 

Henry Laboughere 



BY 



ALGAR LABOUGHERE THOROLD 

AUTHOR OF 
" SIX MASTERS IN DISILLUSION," ETC. 



G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 

NEW YORK AND LONDON 

tTbe ftnicl^erbocTter press 
1913 



w^ 






II h ^ii. 






Copyright, 1913 

BY 

ALGAR LABOUCHERE THOROLD 



Ube 'Rnfcftecbocftcr ipcess, "Mew JBotft 



)CI,A3 5 8414 



XTo 

MY COUSIN 

MARY DOROTHEA 
(marchesa di rudini) 

IN MEMORY OF MANY HAPPY DAYS AT 
VILLA CRISTINA 



Oct. 1$, IQ13. 



PREFACE 

IT would be unfair both to the reader and to the subject of 
this memoir to let this book go forth without a word of 
introduction. The lot of Henry Labouchere, who was born 
in the reign of William IV. and lived to see George V. on the 
throne, was cast during a period of European development 
as important, perhaps, as any that modern history records. 
For certainly the most significant, if not the most salient, 
fact in the history of modem Europe is that democratisation 
of England which, in spite of many set-backs and obstacles, 
has at length been, in principle at all events, definitely 
achieved. To-day we are all democrats, Tories and Radicals 
alike. In that process, the full significance of which has 
still to unfold itself, Mr. Labouchere played a striking and 
original part. It was not always a successful one, but it 
was always played honestly, daringly, and, above all, charac- 
teristically. Although a convinced, and in spite of himself^ 
if one may say so, even an enthusiastic Radical, no politician 
was ever less of a party man. His loyalty was given to 
principles, not men, and some of his bitterest attacks both 
in Parliament and in the press were reserved for Radical 
Ministries that, according to his lights, were untrue to their 
profession. He was also, what is not so common in politics, 
a thoroughly disinterested man. He sought neither office 
nor honour. Circumstances placed him beyond the need 
of money, and just as no personal feelings could ever blind 
him to political shortcomings in his leaders, so the strongest 
and most vehemently expressed disapproval of his opponents 



vi PREFACE 

frequently went with a marked attachment to their persons, 
and the strange thing is that he succeeded in convincing 
both sides of the House of the genuineness of this emotionally- 
disinterested attitude. 

The opinions of Englishmen are rarely disinterested, and 
it should never be forgotten that Henry Labouchere was, 
in fact, a Frenchman. French by birth, he remained, to 
the day of his death, French in his method of formation of 
opinion, in his outlook on Hfe, in the pecuHar quaUty of his 
wit. It was this that enabled, or rather obliged, him to take 
that curiously detached view of English ideals which was at 
times so disconcerting even to those who thought that they 
understood him. Ideals, he held, were only entitled to 
respect when translated into material currency. "How 
much £ s. d. does he believe in what he says?" he would ask 
concerning some fervid prophet. And if convinced that the 
requisite materialisation had occurred, he would accept the 
prophet as one more strange and amusing phenomenon in a 
strange and amusing universe. It would have never oc- 
curred to him that because the prophet was sincere he was 
right. That was a matter for reason. He once observed 
to me, in his whimsical way, of a colleague, that the mere 
denial of the existence of God did not entitle a man's opin- 
ion to be taken without scrutiny on matters of greater 
importance. No "mere" Englishman could have said that. 

That essential foreignness rendered him hard of compre- 
hension even to those who sympathised with his aims. For 
instance, he was a Radical, as sincere and convinced a Radical 
as the late Mr. Stead, but in a very different way. His 
Radicalism was based on Reason. It represented Reason 
applied to that particular department of hirnian affairs 
called Politics, and so appHed, one may add, in spite of the 
irrationality of most of the men called Radical politicians. 
EngHsh Radicalism, on the other hand, rests mainly on hu- 
manitarian sentimentalism. The religion du docker of feudal 
England has been largely replaced by a rival cult, the 



PREFACE vii 

hysterical excesses of which found in him a scathing critic. 
He did not resent the hereditary principle in government 
because it was unjust, but because it was absurd, and when 
he fought some concrete instance of injustice, as he was 
constantly doing, the emotional aspect of the case made 
Httle, if any, appeal to him. He disHked injustice on rational 
and, as it were, aesthetic grounds. He had no passionate 
love of virtue, pubHc or private ; he thought it, on the whole, 
a sound investment, but then even sound investments some- 
times go wrong. In his personal outlook on things he was 
as completely non-reHgious as a man could be. He was not 
anti-reHgious. He fully recognised the utihty of rehgious 
beHef in others, perhaps even in society at large, and he 
based this recognition not so much on the hardness of men's 
hearts as on the thickness of their heads. But personally 
he, Henry Labouchere, took no interest whatever in the 
matter. In philosophy he was a strict agnostic, owning 
Hume, for whom he had the greatest admiration, and the 
Kant of the Critique of Pure Reason, as his masters. And 
he was remarkably well read in the works of those 
philosophers. 

He was constitutionally suspicious of strong feelings or 
enthusiasm of any kind. All sensible people smoked, he 
used to say, in order to protect themselves against such 
disturbing factors. He loathed every kind of humbug. 
He did not, however, disdain it as a weapon. During the 
General Election of 1905 the Tories made a party cry of 
Tariff Reform; he calmly observed one day, throwing down 
his paper: "Well, of course I think we are right, but whether 
we are or not, we 've got all the bunkum on our side." 

In his personal relations with others he was very sociable 
and courteous, retaining even in old age the fine manners of 
an earlier generation. He was immensely kind-hearted, 
and suffered fools, if not gladly, at least with poHteness and 
equanimity. His love for children is well known. There 
was nothing he enjoyed more than giving children's parties, 



Vlll 



PREFACE 



and on these occasions would take any amount of personal 
trouble to ensure the pleasure of his little friends. My 
eariiest recollection of him is, as a child of eight or so, sitting 
on his knee drinking in the most fascinating and horrible 
tales of the Siege of Paris, which he would tell me by the 
hour. And almost my last recollection is of his interest in 
a Christmas tree prepared for my own children on the very 
day on which he took to his bed for the last time. 

These traits make up a character more familiar in France 
than elsewhere. In his political ideas he resembled Clemen- 
ceau more nearly than any English statesman, and in general 
habit of mind he was a direct descendant of Voltaire. In 
character he was more like Fontenelle. He had Fontenelle's 
moral scepticism, his personal confidence in reason qualified 
by his distrust of most people's reasoning powers, and his 
profound sense of the dangers of enthusiasm. People called 
him a cynic ; and, if that somewhat vague term denotes one 
who attempts to discount the emotional factor in judgment, 
who endeavours to see the bare facts in as dry and objective 
a light as possible, a cynic he was. But he was a kind- 
hearted, even an affectionate cynic. It was not easy to 
win his regard, but, if you succeeded in winning it, you were 
sure of it. His own feelings he never expressed; this was 
not because he had none, but because of the exaggerated 
pudeur which he felt on the subject of the emotions. There 
was something both ridiculous and indecent to his mind in 
even the most restrained exhibition of affection. Briefly, 
he may be said to have worn a fig-leaf over his heart. 

A word or two as to the method and scope of this book. 
In order to give a full and detailed account of the whole of 
Labouchere's career, it would have been necessary to write 
at least a dozen volumes; some sort of selection imposed 
itself. I have endeavoured to concentrate my own (and I 
hope my readers') attention on Labouchere himself. There 
is a danger which lurks for the biographer of a public man 
lest the environment of his hero — the narrative of the events 



PREFACE ix 

in which he played a part — should hang too loosely to his 
figure. There is also the danger that the frame, so to speak, 
should not be given its due value in the portrait. In order 
to appreciate the part played in public affairs by an indi- 
vidual, it is necessary to understand what is going on. As 
this book has been written for the general public, I have felt 
it desirable to retell certain episodes in modem politics, in 
which Mr. Labouchere played an important part, in greater 
detail than would have been necessary had I been writing 
for politicians. In such retelling I claim no originality. I 
have followed standard authorities, and the point of view 
of my narrative has been, to a great extent, that of Mr. 
Labouchere himself, although, when I have come to the 
conclusion that that point of view was mistaken, I have not 
hesitated to say so. In this way I hope that the reader may 
be enabled to see the inevitability of much of Labouchere' s 
political action, which at the time, looked at piecemeal, may 
have appeared gratuitously mischievous. 

I feel I ought to call the reader's attention to the fact 
that if Mr. Labouchere's many-sided life is considered as a 
whole, his political proceedings represent but a small part 
of his activity. He had lived an average lifetime before he 
seriously took up political work, and genuine as his principles 
undoubtedly were, still politics were never really more to 
him than a means of self-expression and, it must be said, 
amusement. He loved watching the spectacle of life, and 
he came to find in the game of politics a sort of concentrated 
version of life as a whole. This feeling, the strongest perhaps 
that he possessed, combined with a passion to enter as an 
effective cause into the spectacle he loved, was responsible 
for his political incarnation. And he had a certain half- 
perverse, half-childish love of mischief which he was not 
always at pains to restrain, and which found in the intrigues 
of parties and groups abundant scope for exercise. It could 
not have found so much scope elsewhere, and was the motive 
power of much of his political action, particularly towards 



X PREFACE 

the end of his time in ParHament. After his retirement 
indeed, when politics had literally become nothing but a 
game to him, he would watch the cards as they fell with 
complete detachment from party views: "I wish I was 
entering politics now as a young Tory blood," was a frequent 
comment on public events during his last years. 

Of course, he had his own way of putting things, which 
was not that of other people, and this brings me to the part 
in life as to which both friends and foes are agreed that he 
achieved complete success. Whatever else he was or was 
not, everybody is agreed that he was the greatest English 
wit since Sheridan. His gently modulated voice had a good 
deal to do with his conversational success, and the bland 
quiet manner with which the most startling remarks would 
be accompanied gave them weight, if not point. Still, even 
in cold print many of his sayings and appreciations will live 
as long as men laugh from intellectual motives. "I do not 
mind Mr. Gladstone always having an ace up his sleeve, 
but I do object to his always saying that Providence put it 
there, " is a dictum which will not soon be forgotten. That 
observation, gently drawled out one evening in the lobby of 
the House of Commons, is a specimen of hundreds. I am 
persuaded that originally he had no intention of being witty, 
but supposed his quips and paradoxes to represent the bare 
facts expressed with the greatest economy of language. It 
is certain that no one was more surprised than he at the 
entertainment people found in the Letters of a Besieged 
Resident. He soon discovered his reputation for wit and 
deliberately made use of it, both as a shield and as a weapon 
of defence. It also served another purpose. There was a 
strong tendency to indolence in him that was gratified by 
his success in turning off awkward or puzzling questions with 
some witty or irrelevant remark. If this analysis is correct, 
it throws light on the nature of his wit, which consisted 
largely in a naive and shameless revelation of the Secret de 
Polichinelle. For he said what every one thought but did n't 



PREFACE 



XI 



dare say. The originality of his mind, really consisted in 
the complete absence in his case of those conventional 
superstructures which imprison most of us. When he replied 

to some one who asked him if he liked Mme. X , "Oh 

yes, I like her well enough, but I shouldn't mind if she 
dropped down dead in front of me on the carpet," he was 
only saying what many of us think but would never dream 
of saying even to ourselves of some of our friends. 

It is a commonplace of moralists to say that human 
nature is full of contradictions. A subtler critic of man than 
the mere moralist would add that much of men's time is 
spent in smoothing out, or, at all events, conciliating, these 
contradictions. We choose a possible type of humanity — 
Aristotle, or some other Greek, gave an exhaustive list of 
them — and see ourselves in the part we have selected. 
According to our imaginative power and our strength of 
will we succeed more or less in playing that part at least for 
social purposes. Years pass and the mask grows to the face, 
as in the case of Mr. Beerbohm's Happy Hypocrite, and 
our friends and acquaintances cease in time to distinguish 
between our pose and our character. But there are mo- 
ments when the mask cracks and close observers have their 
surprises. 

Mr. Labouchere gave up early in life any consecutive 
attempt to make himself appear different to his real nature. 
A fragment of an early diary which I have utilised does 
indeed discuss the possibilities of success to the writer, and 
criticises, in scathing terms, achievements up-to-date. But 
this document, interesting and amusing as it is, is itself but 
a piece of boyish introspectiveness. In point of fact he was 
a terribly sincere person, partly from pride and partly from 
indolence. Had he been willing to condescend to insincerity, 
he would have been too lazy to do so for long. Here, then, 
was an additional stumbling-block. It is easy enough to 
understand a pose, or even a succession of poses, but a person 
who says neither more nor less than exactly what he means, 



xii PREFACE 

and means exactly what he says, not because he thinks he 
ought to do so, or wishes to be understood as doing so, but 
because so, and not otherwise, his nature spontaneously 
expresses itself, is, in our present social state, almost unin- 
telligible. What saved him under these circumstances from 
becoming a "prophet" was the pliability of intelligence 
that enabled him to understand other people and the sense 
of humour that enabled him to enjoy them. 

I have selected from the voluminous correspondence put 
at my disposal only those letters which throw most light on 
Mr. Labouchere's state of mind and the part he played in 
political events with which he was connected. 

I have to thank my many relatives and friends who have 
allowed me to make use of their letters from Mr. Labouchere, 
and also my cousin, M. Georges Labouchere, for communi- 
cating the result of his researches on the life of my great- 
grandfather. Among old friends of Mr. Labouchere, who 
have given me personal reminiscences of him, I have espe- 
cially to thank Mrs. Emily Crawford, Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, 
Lord Welby, Sir Audley Gosling, and Mr. Robert Bennett, 
the editor of Truth, whose help has been invaluable in the 
narrative of Mr. Labouchere's founding of Truth and of its 
subsequent fortunes. Most of all, my thanks are due to 
Mr. Thomas Hart Davies, without whose constant sym- 
pathy and assistance this biography could not have been 
written. 

Algar L. Thorold. 

12 Catherine Street, Westminster. 
August 15, 1913. 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER I 

THE LABOUCHERE FAMILY 

PAGE 

The Huguenots of Orthez— Youth of Pierre-C6sar— Exile— The Dutch 
counting-house — A double ruff and a bid for a bride — Napoleon 
and peace — Fouch6 — The French agent — Ouvrard— The wrath of 
Csesar — The French loan — Residence in England — Lord Taunton 
— ^Mr. John Labouchere i 

CHAPTER II 

CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH 

(183I-1853) 

Birth of Henry Labouchere— Early education— His first moi— Eton 
days — The young pugilist— The toper — Views on fagging — 
Trinity College, Cambridge — Insubordination — Suspension — His 
defence — He lives ata London tavern— Severe judgment of himself — 
Travels with a bear-leader— Wiesbaden — Voyage to Mexico — 
Gambling and good resolutions — Letter to his tutor ... 16 

CHAPTER III 

TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 

(1853-1864) 

Travels in Mexico — In love — The Chippeway Indians — In New York — 
His American sympathies — His views on American education — 
On American diplomats — On American girls — Becomes attach^ at 
Washington — Mr. Crampton — Gambling again — ^The Irish patriot 
— Views on diplomatic negotiations — At Munich — Stockholm — 
Frankfort— Bismarck at Frankfort — Similarity of their opinions 



xiv CONTENTS 



PAGE 



about diplomacy — His popularity at Frankfort — Petersburg — In 
love again — His opinion of Russians — Anecdotes — Dresden — 
Economical family at Marburg — Republic of Parana — Revolution 
in Florence — Constantinople — His stories about Lord Bailing — 
Close of diplomatic career — Mrs. Crawford's estimate of his 
character and remarks on his diplomatic career — Memoir of Henry 
Labouchere, by Wilfrid Scawen Blunt ...... 38 

CHAPTER IV 

PARLIAMENTARY AMBITIONS 

( 1 866-1 869) 

Why men enter Parliament — New Windsor — His agreement with Sir 
Henry Hoare — Imprudent choice of agents — Election — Is unseated 
on petition — Repartee before Special Commission — His line of 
defence in the Times — Another letter on the subject — His maiden 
speech — Reminiscences of the Windsor election — Anecdote about 
Lord Taunton — Becomes member for Middlesex — His speeches in 
the House — General Election of 1868 — Lord George Hamilton 
— His quarrel with Lord Enfield — The Times on the quarrel 
— Nomination of candidates — Conservative rowdies — the poll — 
Dignified speech — Absurd reminiscence — Henry Irving at Brentford 
— General Election of 1874 — Is defeated at Nottingham . . 74 

CHAPTER V 

JOURNALISM AND THE STAGE 

(l 864-1 880) 

His connection with the Daily News — He buys a share — Manager of 
the Queen's Theatre — Time and the Hour — Dearer than Life — 
Contretemps — Financial loss — Poor opinion of artists — A Bohemian 
— His knowledge of London — Edmund Yates tells how he came on 
the staff of the World — His city articles — Trial of Abbott at the 
Guild Hall — A calculator — Labouchere and Grenville Murray — 
He leaves the staff of the World — Journey with Mr. Bellew — 
Adventure with Dumas p^re — With Dumas fils — His visit to 
Newgate — Sensations as a man about to be hanged — Remarks 
about the Claimant — Immense popularity of Truth — The Lying Club 
in Co. Durham ......... 95 



CONTENTS XV 

CHAPTER VI 

THE BESIEGED RESIDENT 

(September, 1870-February, 1871) 

PAGE 

He replaces Mr. Crawford as correspondent — Mrs. Crawford's impres- 
sions of him — Chaos at the Post Office — Immediate events leading 
up to the siege — His account of how the news of Sedan was re- 
ceived in Paris — The Prussians at Versailles — How he got his 
letters to London — Ennui — Letter to his mother — Theatrical 
behaviour of the Parisians — Further letters to his mother — His 
wardrobe — His hat — The Gaulois — New Year's address to the 
Prussians — His opinion of French Journalists — His estimate of 
General Trochu — Meals during the siege — Castor and Pollux — 
Another letter to his mother — The leg of mutton and the senti- 
mental Prussian soldier — His departure from Paris — How he 
behaved when under fire . . . . . . . .119 

CHAPTER VII 

LABOUCHERE AND BRADLAUGH 

The General Election of 1880 — The "Radical" coUeague — A faithful 
constituency — Mr. Bradlaugh and the oath — A House divided 
against itself — Labouchere's views on religion — His support of 
Bradlaugh — Unscrupulous use of the affaire Bradlaugh by the 
Opposition — Victory of Mr. Bradlaugh — His upright character and 
final popularity in the House — Mr. Gladstone's tribute — Mr, 
Labouchere on his colleague — The parallel of Wilkes . . . 142 

CHAPTER VIII 

LABOUCHERE AND IRELAND 

(1880-1883) 

Ireland in 1880 — ^The Land League — Outrages — Lord Cowper and Mr. 
Forster demand suppression of Habeas Corpus — Mr. Gladstone's 
hesitation — He yields under threat of Lord Cowper's resignation — 
Introduction by Forster of Bills for the Protection of Life and 
Property in Ireland, January, 1881 — Labouchere's Irish views — Not 
at first a Home Ruler — Labouchere criticises Forster's measure in 
the House — ^The arrest of Parnell — His liberation — The "under- 
standing" with Mr. Gladstone — Murder of Lord Frederick 
Cavendish and Mr. Burke — Renewed coercion opposed by Mr. 
Labouchere — He negotiates between the Government and Irish 



xvi CONTENTS 

PAGE 

leaders in order to modify the Coercion Bill — Correspondence 
with Mr. Chamberlain — Interviews with Mr. Parnell — Identity of 
his Irish policy with that of Mr. Chamberlain .... 165 

CHAPTER IX 

LABOUCHERE AND MR. GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 

Mr. Gladstone and Egypt — A legacy from Disraeli — Cyprus and the 
Berlin Congress — The "Comedy of the Liars" — The Anglo-French 
Condominium — Ismail — Nubar and Sir Rivers Wilson — Sir Evelyn 
Baring — Deposition of Ismail — Khedive Tewfik — Revolt — Arabi 
Pasha — Mr. Wilfrid Blunt — Labouchere and Egypt — Labouchere 
drops his burden of Egyptian bonds — A letter to Sir Charles Dilke — 
Labouchere and military occupation — The Egyptian Government 
and the debt — The champions of Arabi — Speeches in the House — 
The Soudan — General Gordon — Correspondence between Labou- 
chere and Chamberlain; between Labouchere and Mr. Blunt 
— Letters from Arabi to Mr. Labouchere — ^A later letter to Mr. 
Blunt 190 

CHAPTER X 

HENRY LABOUCHERE's RADICALISM 

Labouchere's political attitude — His faith in Chamberlain — Despair at 
Chamberlain's secession — His article in the Fortnightly, 1884 — 
The Radical creed — The House of Lords and the Crown — The 
Church — ^The Land Laws — The Royal Family — Female suffrage — 
Whigs more to be detested than Tories ..... 225 

CHAPTER XI 

IN OPPOSITION 

(June, 1885-December, 1885) 

Sir Henry Lucy on Labouchere — "The friendly broker" — Lord Salis- 
bury's First Administration — Irish and Tories — Labouchere, Healy, 
and Chamberlain — The General Election — The Midlothian mani- 
festo — A letter from Mr. Davitt — From Mr. Parnell and Lord 
Randolph Churchill — Letters from Mr. Healy — Labouchere's 
letter to the Times about Home Rule — Correspondence between 
Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Chamberlain ..... 250 



CONTENTS xvii 

CHAPTER XII 

THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 

PAGE 

Legislators in correspondence— Further letters from Mr. Chamberlain 
and Mr. Healy— Resignation of Mr. Chamberlain— Labouchere's 
eflEorts to reconcile Mr. Chamberlain with the Cabinet— His 
disappointment * 304 

CHAPTER XIII 

SOME CONSEQUENCES OF BALFOUR's COERCION POLICY 

Lord SaUsbury's Second Administration— The new Coercion Bill— 
"Pamellism and Crime"— The facsimile letter— Mr. Healy on 
the condition of Ireland— Radical demonstration in Hyde Park- 
Mr. Labouchere on a waggon— He goes to Michelstown— The 
famous meeting— He describes the meeting in the House— Lord 
Randolph Churchill's cnticism— Truth on the Michelstown murders 
—More incriminating letters— Mr. Labouchere enters the lists— 
The Parnell Commission— Correspondence with Pigott— First inter- 
view-Correspondence with Irishmen in America— Letter from 
Patrick Egan— Letters from Parnell— Pigott and the Attorney- 
General • 357 

CHAPTER XIV 

COLLAPSE OF PIGOTT 

Lord Russell's cross-examination of Pigott— The disappearance of 
Pigott— His confession to Mr. Labouchere— Mr. Lewis returns the 
confession— The Commission hears from Pigott— He sends the 
confession, under cover, to Mr. Shannon— The confession read out 
in court— Mr. Labouchere in the witness-box— Mr. Sala describes 
the scene at 24 Grosvenor Gardens— Pigott's end— Mr. Labou- 
chere's compassion for his orphans— Letter from Dr. Walsh — 
Mr. Labouchere and Primrose dames— Trying to hoax Labby . 391 

CHAPTER XV 

MR. LABOUCHERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE CABINET 

Speeches on the Triple Alliance— He is not in the Cabinet— Queen 
Victoria's objection to the editor of Truth— Mr. Gladstone's 
correspondence with Mr. Labouchere— The indignation of North- 
ampton — Mr. Labouchere's desire to be appointed Ambassador at 
Washington — Another disappointment for him .... 409 



xviii CONTENTS 

CHAPTER XVI 

THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA 

PAGE 

The Jameson Raid and the South African War — Mr. Labouchere on the 

Jameson Raid Commission ........ 426 

CHAPTER XVII 

LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM 

Mr. Labouchere on Socialism — Discussion with Mr. Hyndman . , [ 458 

CHAPTER XVIII 

MR. LABOUCHERE AS A JOURNALIST 
Mr. Labouchere as Journalist and Litigant — Narrative of Truth , .491 

CHAPTER XIX 

THE CLOSING YEARS 

Retirement from Parliament — Farewell to Electors — Some correspond- 
ence — Last days . . . . . _ . . . 517 

INDEX 541 



ILLUSTRATIONS 



PAGE y 
RIGHT HON. HENRY LABOUCHERE, P.C. . FfOntispiece 

From a photograph by Messrs. Brogi of Florence, taken in 1905 
at Villa Cristina, Florence. 



FACSIMILE LETTER SENT BY BALLOON POST . . . 126 



XIS 



THE LIFE OF 
HENRY LABOUGHERE 



THE LIFE OF LABOUCHERE 



CHAPTER I 
THE LABOUCHERE FAMILY 

SOME forty miles south of Bayonne, on the right bank of 
the Gave, Hes the Uttle town of Orthez, the ancient 
capital of Beam. Famous for the obstinacy of its resistance 
to the apostoHc spirit of Louis XIV. and the excellence of 
its manufactured cloth, Orthez was further distinguished 
during the Wars of ReHgion by the possession of a Protestant 
tiniversity founded by Jeanne d'Albret in which Theodore 
Beza was professor. In 1664, the most Christian King sent 
his intendant Foucault to deal with the nest of heretics. 
Foucault did not waste time in theological subtleties, but 
gave the inhabitants twenty days in which to conform under 
penalty of a dragonnade. They did so unanimously, but 
there still remain more Protestants in Orthez than in any 
other town of Beam. 

Among the cloth merchants of Orthez none were more 
distinguished than the Laboucheres. According to the 
Freres Haag, the compilers of La France Protestante, their 
name should be Barrier de Labouchere, the patronymic 
which they came to adopt being in reality the name of a 
property in the possession of the family. The earliest 
known ancestor of the Laboucheres seems to have been a 



2 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

certain Jean Guyon Barrier, who married in 1621 one 
Catherine de la Broue. 

Pierre-C6sar, the founder of the British branch of the 
family and the grandfather of the subject of this memoir, 
was bom at The Hague in 1772. He was the second son of 
Matthieu Labouchere and Marie-Madeleine MoHere. His 
father, who, in consequence of the revocation of the Edict 
of Nantes, had been sent to England for his education, had 
subsequently settled in Holland. Pierre-Cesar was sent at 
the age of thirteen to learn his uncle Pierre's business at 
Nantes,^ where he remained until 1790, at which date he 
entered the house of Hope at Amsterdam as French clerk. 
In this himible position he laid the foundations of the great 
fortune and financial career which were to be his. The rise 
of the young French clerk was rapid. In six years he was a 
partner in the house of Hope and had married Dorothy, 
sister of Alexander Baring, who had become a partner in 
the Dutch firm at the same time as his French brother-in- 
law. The well-known story of the clever ruse by which 
Pierre-C6sar won the hand of his bride and also his partner- 
ship in the house of Hope was told to the present writer 
some twenty years ago by the Rev. Alexander Baring' as 
follows : 

Pierre-Cesar was sent by Mr. John Hope to England to 
see Sir Francis Baring on some business, and fell in love 
with Sir Francis 's third daughter Dorothy. Before leaving 
England he asked Sir Francis to permit him to become 
engaged to his daughter. Sir Francis refused. Pierre- 
Cesar then said: "Would it make any difference to your 
decision if you knew that Mr. Hope was about to take me 
into partnership? " Sir Francis imhesitatingly admitted that 

^ Presumably Uncle Pierre had conformed and stuck to it. 

' The portraits of Pierre-C^sar Labouchfere and Dorothy his wife, now in 
my possession, were then at Famham Castle, and Mr. Baring was visiting 
my father, the then Bishop of Winchester, when he related to me this anecdote 
of my great-grandparents. 



THE LABOUCHERE FAMILY 3 

it would. Pierre-C^sar then went back to Holland and sug- 
gested to Mr. Hope that he might be taken into partner- 
ship. On Mr. Hope discouraging the idea, he said: "Would 
it make any difference to your decision if you knew that I 
was engaged to the daughter of Sir Francis Baring?" Mr. 
Hope replied, "Certainly." Whereupon the wily clerk 
said: "Well, I am engaged to Miss Dorothy Baring." That 
very day he was able to write to Sir Francis announcing the 
news of his admission to partnership in the house of Hope, 
and in the same letter he claimed the hand of his bride. "^ 

The following picture of Pierre-Cesar by a contemporary 
is interesting. The writer was Vincent Nolte, for many 
years a clerk in the house of Hope at Amsterdam. "Mr. 
Labouchere was at that time but twenty-two, yet ere long 
assumed the highly respectable position of head of the firm, 
the first in the world, and studied the manners of a French 
courtier previous to the Revolution: these he soon made so 
thoroughly his own, that they seemed to be a part of his own 
nature. He made a point of distinguishing himself in every- 
thing he undertook by a certain perfection, and carried this 
feeling so far that, on account of the imtractable lack of 
elasticity of his body and a want of ear for music which nature 
had denied him, he for eighteen years deemed it necessary 
to take dancing-lessons, because he saw that others surpassed 
him in the graceful accomplishment. It was almost painful 
to see him dance. The old school required, in the French 
quadrille, some entrechats and one or two pirouettes, and the 
delay they occasioned him always threw him out of time. 
I have often seen the old gentleman, already more than fifty, 
rettim from a quadrille covered with perspiration. Properly 
speaking, he had no refined education, understood but very 

^ The story is confirmed by the Hon. Francis Henry Baring. Mr. F. H. 
Baring was told it by the late Thomas Charles Baring, M.P., the son of the 
Bishop of Durham. Mr. T. C. Baring was for many years a partner in Baring 
Bros., where he probably heard the story. Sir Henry Lucy, in his More Pas- 
sages by the Way, mentions that Mr. Labouchfere himself believed the story 
to be true. 



4 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

little of the fine arts, and, notwithstanding his shrewdness 
and quickness of perception, possessed no natural powers of 
wit, and consequently was all the more eager to steal the 
humour of other people. He once repeated to myself as a 
witty remark of his own to one of his clerks, the celebrated 
answer of De Sartines, a former chief of the French police, 
to one of his subordinates who asked for an increase of pay 
in the following words: 'You do not give me enough — still 
I must live ! ' The reply he got was : ' I do not perceive the 
necessity of that!' Now, so hard-hearted a response was 
altogether foreign to Mr. Labouchere's disposition, as he 
was a man of most excellent and generous feeling. He had, 
assiiredly, without intention, fallen into the singular habit 
of speaking his mother-tongue — the French — with an almost 
English intonation, and English with a strong French accent. 
But he was most of all remarkable for the chivalric idea of 
honour in mercantile transactions, which he constantly 
evinced, and which I never, during my whole life, met with 
elsewhere, in the same degree, however numerous may have 
been the high-minded and honourable merchants with whom 
I have been thrown in contact. He fully possessed what the 
French call des idees chevaleresques.'''^ 

In 1800 Pierre-Cesar re-established himself for a time in 
England, whither Hope's had been temporarily transferred 
after the invasion of Holland by Pichegru. A few years 
later he became involved in an interesting and delicate 
political negotiation. 

In April, 18 10, Napoleon, whose marriage with Marie 
Louise had filled him with peaceful aspirations, surveyed the 
world that he had conquered and decided that, for the 
moment, he had conquered enough. To consolidate his 
empire and his dependencies, peace was necessary. The 
only obstacle to peace was England — England who had never 
bowed before his eagles and only grudgingly admitted his 

"^ Vincent Nolte, Fifty Years in Both Hemispheres. American translation, 
1854. 



THE LABOUCHERE FAMILY 5 

existence. Negotiation with England was imperative, but 
how to negotiate, and by what means? What had he to 
offer Mr. Pitt? A substantial argument presented itself 
in the condition of Holland. Louis Buonaparte had dis- 
appointed his autocratic brother as an allied sovereign, and 
it was the Emperor's intention to remove him from the Dutch 
throne and tmite the whole of the Netherlands to the Empire. 
This course could not fail to be disagreeable to the English, 
who would then be flanked by the French on two sides. So 
it occurred to Napoleon that, by leaving Holland her inde- 
pendence, he would be giving England a substantial quid pro 
quo for the withdrawal of British troops from the Peninsula. 
Evidently, however, he could not himself directly open nego- 
tiations. Not only would such action lower his prestige, 
but it was doubtful whether those infernal islanders would 
consent to treat with him. The negotiations had to be 
opened by way of Holland. King Louis' Government must 
not appear in it. There were prudent men of affairs there 
who could be trusted with the delicate task. Louis was 
delighted with the idea. He would retain his estate as an 
independent sovereign, the commerce of Europe would 
once more circulate freely to the replenishment of his sub- 
jects' coffers, and his terrible brother's ambitions would be 
effectively circumscribed. 

Fouche, who, imknown to the Emperor, had already sent 
a private agent to London to discuss with the British Cabinet 
possible conditions of peace, entered enthusiastically into 
the project and designated Pierre-Cesar as in every way the 
most suitable person to be entrusted with the affair. His 
position in the world of business as a partner of Hope in 
Amsterdam and of Baring in London was of the highest, and 
his father-in-law, Sir Francis Baring, who had been one of 
the principal directors of "John Company," was an intimate 
friend of Wellesley, the Enghsh Foreign Secretary, with 
whom he had spent some time in India. 

Labouchere was to present himself informally to Wellesley, 



6 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

not as an envoy of the King of Holland and still less as the 
mouthpiece of Napoleon, but in the names of Roell, Van 
Der Heim, and Mollerus, three Dutch statesmen who pro- 
fessed to have been initiated by their King into all the secrets 
of the French Cabinet. He was to explain to the English 
Foreign Secretary that the marriage of Napoleon had altered 
his position and had caused him to desire the peace of Europe 
as a necessary condition of the consolidation of his Empire, 
and that, in order to induce the English Government to 
abandon hostilities, he was prepared to forego his intention 
of uniting Holland to his dominions. The Dutch Cabinet, 
aware of the Emperor's views, had hastened to open informal 
communications in order at one stroke to secure the peace 
of Europe and to retain the independence of their coimtry. 
All having been arranged, Labouchere crossed from Brielle 
to Yarmouth and posted to London on his secret mission. 

As a matter of fact the moment was not well chosen for 
its success. After the retirement, on the Catholic question, 
of Grenville and Grey, who had continued the Fox -Pitt 
coalition, the old Duke of Portland, who had been Home 
Secretary in Mr. Pitt's first Government, became Prime 
Minister. He maintained his power with difficulty : Canning 
and Castlereagh, respectively Home Secretary and Foreign 
Minister, quarrelled, left the Cabinet in order to fight a duel, 
and did not return to it. Lord Chatham did not survive 
the results of the expedition to Walcheren, and shortly 
afterwards Portland himself died. Mr. Perceval and Lord 
Wellesley were the most important persons left in the Cabinet. 
Perceval, who had been Portland's Chancellor of the Ex- 
chequer, kissed hands as Prime Minister on December 2, 
1809, and Wellesley took the place of Bathurst as Foreign 
Secretary. Perceval was a clever lawyer and a bitter and 
prejudiced Tory; Wellesley's hereditary politics were quali- 
fied by suave manners, an enlightened spirit, and an unusual 
talent for clear and eloquent statement. Less passionate 
than Perceval, he had not the Prime Minister's influence 



THE LABOUCHERE FAMILY 7 

with the party, but he enjoyed an immense reputation in 
the country which was daily increased by the news of his 
brother's gallant deeds at the front. The position of the 
Government, in spite of their parliamentary majority, was 
not very strong. They held their power by that most 
uncertain tenure — success in arms. 

The opposition, led by Grenville and Grey, rejoiced in 
the avowed favour of the Prince of Wales, whom an accident, 
such was the state of the King's health, might any day call 
to the regency, and even to the throne. The Prince had 
openly declared himself against the war, and the leaders of 
the opposition argued forcibly, in and out of season, against 
its continuance. The militarism of the country was not, 
however, to be checked in this way. The news of one victory 
outweighed much argument. But news was not always of 
victories. Forty thousand English troops had been forced 
to retire before Antwerp, with a loss of fifteen thousand from 
death and disease. This calamity more than balanced the 
victory of Talavera. Perceval stuck to his war policy with 
blind and furious determination. He no doubt felt that his 
one chance of retaining office was to do so. Wellesley, on 
the other hand, in spite of the glory won by his family 
through the war, was open to reason on the subject. He had 
already received politely Captain Pagan, a high officer in 
Conde's army, whom Pouche had sent over on his own re- 
sponsibility to feel the way toward conditions of peace. He 
had received him politely, but had answered him evasively 
to the effect that the King's Government was by no means 
bent on continuing the war at all costs, but would gladly 
entertain proposals of peace if they were advanced by 
responsible, fully accredited agents and were compatible 
with the honour of the two nations. Labouch^re was imable 
to get anything more definite out of him. But Wellesley, 
reserved with the French agent, opened himself more fully 
to his old friend Sir Francis Baring. To him he explained 
that no member of the Cabinet believed in Napoleon's good 



8 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

faith. He personally saw nothing in Labouchere's mission 
but a trap laid for English public opinion by the supreme 
adventurer, and judged that nothing was to be gained by 
playing into his hand. Moreover, the Government would 
never abandon Spain to Joseph or Sicily to Murat, and 
would in no circumstances consent to the loss of Malta. 
The fullest preliminary assurances on these points were the 
sine qua non of any successful negotiation. 

Sir Francis Baring, who was a sagacious man, communi- 
cated this conversation, together with his personal com- 
ments thereon, to Labouchere. It was evident, he said, 
that England had grown accustomed to the war, and would 
not abandon it except under the stress of a reverse impossible 
to predict, and that the nation would never lose all they had 
fought for in the Peninsula by yielding Spain to a Buonaparte 
prince. He suggested, without any official authority, an 
arrangement which, leaving Malta to England, would give 
Naples to Murat, Sicily to the Neapolitan Bourbons, and 
would restore Spain to Ferdinand, save for the provinces on 
the French side of the Ebro, which might be given to Na- 
poleon as an indemnity for the expenses of the war. Con- 
vinced that nothing further was to be obtained in London, 
Labouchere returned to Holland and sent to King Louis at 
Paris the meagre results of his mission. Unfortunately, Na- 
poleon was as well accustomed to war as England. As soon as 
he had received Labouchere's reply, he gave up the notion of 
using Holland as a weapon against England and determined 
to settle his affairs with his brother independently of the 
general situation. Nevertheless, he did not wish to entirely 
let fall the indirect relations on which Labouchere had 
entered with the English Cabinet, and sent him a reply to 
be transmitted through Sir Francis Baring to Lord Wellesley. 
The Emperor's reply was perhaps more statesmanlike than 
might have been expected. If England was accustomed to 
the war, the French were even more in their element on the 
battlefield. France was victorious, rich, prosperous, obliged, 



THE LABOUCHERE FAMILY 9 

no doubt, to pay a high price for sugar and coffee, but not 
reduced to the point of doing without those luxuries. She 
could support the situation for a long time yet. If, in these 
conditions, he thought of peace, it was because in the new 
position created by his marriage with an Austrian archduchess 
he was anxious to terminate the struggle between the old 
order and the new. As for the kingdoms he had created, 
it was not to be thought that he would sacrifice any of them. 
Never would he dethrone his brothers Joseph, Murat, Louis, 
and Jerome. But the destinies of Portugal and Sicily were 
still in suspense ; these two countries, Hanover, the Hanseatic 
cities, and the Spanish colonies might still be dealt with. 
In any case, it might be possible to mitigate the horrors of 
war. He had been obliged to reply by the decrees of Berlin 
and Milan to the orders-in-council issued by the British 
Cabinet, and the sea had been converted into a stage for 
violence of every description. This state of things was 
perhaps more dangerous for England than for France, since 
an Anglo-American war might easily result. If the English 
Government agreed with these appreciations they had but 
to relax their laws of blockade. France would follow suit, 
Holland and the Hanseatic towns would retain their inde- 
pendence, the sea would be opened to neutrals, the war would 
lose some of its bitterness, and, possibly, in time a complete 
understanding between the two nations might be reached. 
Such was Napoleon's, on the whole, judicious reply, and on 
these terms, and on these terms only, was Labouchere 
authorised to make any further attempts at negotiation. 

But Napoleon counted without Fouche. That brilliant 
and unscrupulous person, who had been recently raised 
to the important Ministry of Police with the title of Due 
d'Otrante, was a peace fanatic. In every day that the war 
continued he saw danger to the Empire. The failure of the 
Labouchere mission, in which he no doubt felt his self-love 
woiuided, since he had himself indicated the envoy, dis- 
appointed him profoundly. He determined to bring about 



10 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

peace himself, and relied on his success to justify himself in 
the Emperor's eyes. It would have been a dangerous thing 
to do under any government: it was a piece of insanity 
under a master so absolute, so vigilant, as Napoleon. He 
accordingly sent one Ouvrard to Amsterdam to urge Labou- 
chere to reopen negotiations with the British Cabinet on 
conditions much more favourable to England than the 
Emperor had made. Labouchere naturally thought that 
Fouche once more represented Napoleon, and recommenced 
negotiations on a basis much more satisfactory to English 
policy. The basis was different indeed. According to 
Ouvrard, the Emperor would modify his views on Sicily, 
Spain, the Spanish colonies, Portugal, and Holland; he was 
earnestly desirous of peace, and he shared the hostility of the 
British Cabinet to the Americans. In order to give Labou- 
chere more credit with Wellesley, Fouche offered to give up 
to him a mysterious personage called Baron KoUi, an English 
police agent, who had been visiting Valengay to arrange the 
escape of Ferdinand. Kolli had been arrested by the French 
troops who had charge of the imprisoned King. The arrest 
had been considered an important event by the Cabinet of 
St. Cloud. To all this Ouvrard added a good deal of his 
own, and Labouchere could not do otherwise than believe 
what he was told. Accordingly he reopened negotiations 
by letter with Wellesley. ^ 

In the following month. Napoleon, who was making one of 
his tours of personal inspection in the Netherlands, discussed 
the Labouchere negotiations with his brother Louis at 
Antwerp. By a curious chance he had caught sight on his 
journey of Ouvrard, who was on his way from Amsterdam 
to Paris. The Emperor's promptness of mind had at once 
suggested to him that Ouvrard, who enjoyed the favour of 
Fouche and had business relations with Labouchere, was 
probably mixing himself up in what did not concern him, 

' Thiers, Histoire du Consulat et de VEmpire; Louis Madelin, Fouche. See 
also Times, March i6, 1811, for the English account. 



THE LABOUCHERE FAMILY ii 

perhaps giving advice which was not wanted, or trying to 
float some speculation on the probabiHties of peace. With 
the presentiment of his genius he at once forbade Labouch^re 
to have any relations with Ouvrard and ordered him to send 
immediately all the correspondence that had been exchanged 
between Amsterdam and London to the King. Labouchere 
at once communicated all his own letters and those he had 
received from London. 

The blow fell on June 2 at St. Cloud, where the Emperor, 
the day after his return from Holland, convoked a Council 
of Ministers to meet him. Fouche, in charge of the most 
important portfolio of the imperial Cabinet, was naturally 
present. Napoleon turned and rent him. What was 
Ouvrard doing in Holland? Had Fouche sent him there? 
Was he or was he not an accomplice of this preposterous 
intrigue? Fouche, surprised and upset by this sudden and 
unexpected attack, could find nothing better to say than 
that Ouvrard was a busybody who was always mixing him- 
self up in other people's business and that it was wiser to 
pay no attention to anything he might say. The astute 
personage must indeed have been upset to attempt to "pay" 
Napoleon with such words. Ouvrard and his papers were 
at once seized, the mission being entrusted not to Fouche, 
who as Minister of the Police would naturally have received 
such an order, but to Sazary, an aide-de-camp whom the 
Emperor had made Due de Rovigo and in whom he had 
complete confidence. Ouvrard's papers revealed at once 
the extent to which the intrigue had been pushed and of 
Fouche's compHcity. The next day Fouche was dismissed 
from the Ministry of Police, where he was succeeded by 
Rovigo, and appointed Governor of Rome. When Napoleon 
had anything to do he did it quickly. 

He did not rest there, however. He was determined to 
get to the fin fond of these singular negotiations. Ouvrard, 
kept in prison, was constantly examined, and Labouchere 
was summoned to Paris and ordered to bring all the papers 



12 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

still in his hands. It appeared, from a comparison of these 
with those already seized, that Labouchere had acted in 
perfectly good faith, and the whole responsibility rested 
with Fouche and Ouvrard, Pouche's disgrace was complete. 
As soon as the Emperor discovered the episode of the Fagan 
mission he turned once more on the luckless minster and 
demanded all the papers relative to that affair. Fouche 
replied that they were of no importance and that he had 
burned them. Napoleon, on hearing this, gave way to one 
of his appalling exhibitions of rage, took away from Fouche 
the governorship of Rome, and exiled him to Aix in Provence. 
So ended this curious affair in which Pierre-Cesar Labouchere 
had served his country faithfully and intelligently to the 
extent which circumstances permitted. Some years later 
he was to serve his coimtry perhaps more signally, and 
certainly more effectively. 

When in 1817 France was beginning the task of recon- 
struction, the principal difficulty in the way of the ministers 
of Louis XVIII. was the very serious financial situation. 
By the treaty of November 20 of the preceding year, the 
country was pledged to pay to foreigners no less than seven 
hundred million francs in money in the course of five years, 
with an additional sum of a hundred and thirty million for 
the pay of the 150,000 foreign troops which occupied the 
coimtry. There were also numerous debts, both at home 
and abroad, the payment of which had been guaranteed by 
the treaties of 18 14 and 1815. The ordinary revenue was 
useless to meet such heavy charges, and extraordinary 
taxation, in the state of the country, would have spelt ruin. 
It was necessary to have recourse to credit. But how to 
obtain a loan? France was not in a state which could 
inspire financiers with much confidence. In these cir- 
cumstances Messrs. Labouchere and Baring once more 
placed themselves at the service of the French Government. 
They purchased nearly twenty-seven million francs' worth 
of government five per cent, rente, and thus restored French 



THE LABOUCHERE FAMILY 



13 



credit. Their action was, no doubt, not purely disinterested, 
as they bought the rente at an average price of 56.50 and 
obtained an interest of nine per cent, on their money. Still, 
the difficulty of the moment was to find anybody to do it 
at any price. ^ A private journal of the period, kept by the 
husband of a niece of Sir Francis Baring, consequently a 
first cousin by marriage of Mme. Pierre-Cesar Labouchere, 
gives the following account of the transaction:'' "The 
'Alliance Loan' of the Barings at Paris in 18 16 probably 
doubled his (Pierre-Cesar's) fortune, and he soon after 
quitted business, and settled altogether in England, living 
at Hylands, a property he bought in Essex, and in Hamilton 
Place, where his home was frequented by many distinguished 
people and diplomatists." 

Two sons were bom to Pierre- Cesar and Dorothy Labou- 
chere. The elder, Henry, was bom in 1798, and made for 
himself a social and political career of decided distinction, 
as a Whig of the old school, a certain primness and conven- 
tionality of character enabling him to perform the part 
successfully in private as in public life. He took a first- 
class in classics at Oxford, and in 1832 found himself a Lord 
of the Admiralty. He became subsequently Vice-President 
of the Board of Trade, Under-Secretary to the Colonies, 
President of the Board of Trade, Chief Secretary of Ireland, 
Secretary of State for the Colonies, and was raised to the 
peerage in 1859, when he assumed the title of Earon Taunton, 
choosing the name of the borough he had represented in 
Parliament for thirty years. It was at Taunton in 1835 
that he opposed and defeated Dizzy by a majority of a 
hundred and seventy, when, on his appointment as Master 
of the Mint under Lord Melbourne, he offered himself to 
his constituents for re-election. His primness and conven- 

^ Histoire de Mon Temps: Memoires du Chancelier Pasquier, publides par le 
Due d'Audriffet-Pasquier, 1789- 1830. 

=• The journal was written by Mr. T. L. Mallet, who married Lucy, daughter 
of Charles Baring. I am indebted for the extract to Lord Northbrook. 



14 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

tionality found on this occasion an admirable foil in the 
manner and appearance of his opponent, who was "very 
showily attired in a bottle-green frock coat, a waistcoat of 
the most extravagant pattern, the front of which was almost 
covered with glittering chains, and in fancy pattern pan- 
taloons." The judicious electors of Tatinton preferred 
Mr. Labouchere's more solid qualities. 

Lord Taunton died very suddenly on July 13, 1869. He 
was twice married, first to Frances, daughter of Sir Thomas 
Baring, ^ and secondly to Lady Mary Howard, a daughter of 
Lord Carlisle. He left no sons. Consequently the bulk 
of his fortune descended to his brother John Labouchere's 
eldest son Henry, the future member for Northampton and 
editor of Truth. 

The yoimger Henry Labouchere's earliest recollections 
carried him back to his childish visits to his grandfather in 
Hamilton Place, where Prince Talleyrand, then Ambassador 
to the Court of St. James (1830-34), was a frequent visitor. 
"I have always taken a special interest in Talleyrand," he 
wrote when he was sixty, "because he gave me when a child 
a very gorgeous box of dominoes."^ 

The elder Henry Labouchere does not seem at first sight 
to have shared any traits with his nephew and namesake. 
The only point on which they may be said to have agreed 
was their love for America. Lord Taimton as a young man 
travelled much in the United States with Lord Derby, and 
he had important business interests there as well as in South 
America, arising out of the commercial enterprises of the 

' Yet another link between the Laboucheres and the Barings was forged 
by the marriage, in 1837, of Lady Taunton's sister, Emily Baring, to Mrs. John 
Labouchere's brother, the Rev. William Maxwell Du Pre. His sister, Caroline 
Du Pre, became the wife of the Rev. Spenser Thornton, who was a grandson 
of Godfrey Thornton by Jane his wife, a daughter of an influential director 
of the French hospital, Stephen Peter Godin, whose family note-book was 
published in the January number of the Genealogist {The Lahouchhe Pedigree, 
by Henry Wagner, F.S.A., 1913). 

» Truth, March 19, 1891. 



THE LABOUCHERE FAMILY 15 

house of Hope. He acquired in the course of his travels a 
strong liking for American institutions and a genuine affec- 
tion for the American people, a feeling which, as we shall see, 
was shared by his nephew. 

Mr. John Labouchere predeceased Lord Taunton by six 
years, and it was often presumed by persons who knew the 
family but slightly that the younger Henry Labouchere was 
the son of Lord Taunton, which mistake gave the young wit 
the opportunity of making one of his best-known repartees. 
On one occasion a gentleman, to whom Henry was introduced 
for the first time, opened the conversation by remarking: 
"I have just heard your father make an admirable speech 
in the House of Lords." "The House of Lords!" replied 
Mr. Labouchere, assuming an air of intense interest, "well, 
I always have wondered where my father went to when he 
died." 



CHAPTER II 
CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH 

(1831-1853) 

JOHN PETER LABOUCHERE,^ the younger son of 
Pierre-Cesar Labouchere, was a partner in the firm 
of Hope at Amsterdam, and, later, a partner in the bank of 
Williams, Deacon, Thornton, and Labouchere. He married 
Mary Louisa Du Pre,^ second daughter of Mr. James Du 
Pre of Wilton Park in Buckinghamshire, and granddaughter 
of Sir William Maxwell of Monteith, by whom he had a 
family of three sons and six daughters, of whom one son and 
four daughters are still living. He was the owner of Broome 
Hall in Siurey, and his town house was at 16 Portland Place. 
He was an extremely religious man and well known for his 
charitable and philanthropic labours. At one period his 
elder brother, Lord Taunton, then Mr. Henry Labouchere, 
also had a house in Portland Place, and he used to relate that 
he was constantly pestered by persons confusing him with 
his brother the banker, who called to ask for his help and 
patronage with regard to various evangelical enterprises. 
It was his habit to reply to them : "You have made a mistake, 
sir; the good Mr. Labouchere lives at No. 16." 

Henry Du Pre, the eldest son of John Labouchere, was 
bom at 16 Portland Place on November 9, 1831. His 

^ Bom Aug. 14, 1799; died Jan. 29, 1863. » Died April 29, 1874. 

16 



1831-1853] CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH 17 

education, had he been a docile pupil, would, according to 
his father's wishes, have been that of a conventional English 
boy with some reasonable expectations of a fine career in 
the financial or the diplomatic world, into either of which he 
had an easy entree through the influence of the Labouchere 
family. But he displayed, at the very beginning of his 
career, a curious and original character, which did not seem 
to follow easily any of the known paths of learning marked 
out for the youth of his period. The earliest repartee re- 
corded of him was made to the headmaster of the private 
school to which he was sent at the age of six. Before break- 
fast, the morning after his arrival, the new boys were placed 
in a row, and asked whether they had all washed their teeth. 
One by one they answ^ered in the affirmative, until came the 
turn of Henry. "No," he answered firmly. "And pray 
why not?" wound up the master indignantly, after a long 
lecture on the enormity of the crime of neglecting the clean- 
liness of the teeth. "Because I haven't got any," smiled 
Henry suddenly. He was just at the stage of changing his 
baby teeth, and his toothless gums were displayed for the 
full benefit of the discomfited moralist.' Nearly fifty years 
later Labouchere published the following accoimt of his 
school-days : 

"When I was a boy I was sent to a school which was kept 
by one of the most ill-conditioned ruffians that ever wielded 
a cane. He used to suffer from lumbago (this was my only 
consolation), and would crawl on his hands and knees into 
the schoolroom; then he would rear up and commence caning 
a few boys, merely, I truly believe, from a notion that the 
exercise would be beneficial to his muscles. The man was 
ignorant, brutal, mean, and cruel, and yet his school some- 
how had a reputation as an excellent one — mainly, I suspect, 
because he had the effrontery to charge a high price for the 
privilege of being at it."^ 

- 1 am indebted to Mrs. Hillyer, Mr. Labouchere's eldest sister, for the 
above anecdote. * Truth, May 28, 1885. 



i8 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1831- 

He went to Eton in the September of 1844, and was 
entered at the house of Edward Balston, who afterwards 
became headmaster. Dr. Hawtrey, whose classical teaching 
has been described as "more picturesque than useful," was 
headmaster during the three years and a half that Henry 
Labouchere was at the school. The boy seems to have been 
a fairly idle scholar, and nothing remarkable in the way of a 
sportsman. He was exceedingly small for his age and, in 
consequence, a light weight, so that he was much in request 
on summer afternoons as a "cox." Among his contempo- 
raries at Eton were the late Lord Avebury, the late Sir 
George Tryon, Lord Roberts, the late Sir Arthur Blackwood, 
Sir Algernon West, and Lord Welby. Lord Welby recollects 
that he had, even in his Eton days, the dry, cynical manner 
and original mode of verbal expression which, later on, 
marked him out from his fellows. 

Labouchere fell under a suspicion of bullying whilst at 
Balston's, and the consequences he was forced to undergo are 
interesting as illustrative of the Eton justice of the forties. 
He was in the fifth form, and the elder boys of his house 
summoned the captain of the lower boys, one Barton, who 
was a good deal bigger than Labouchere, to fight him in the 
house. Barton had no quarrel on his own account with 
Labouchere — it was a case of representative justice. The 
fight was arranged to take place in one of the rooms after 
tea, it being the uncomfortable practice in those days always 
to fight after a meal. Labouchere and Barton punched 
away at each other for an hour or so, imtil the big boys went 
down to supper, when they were allowed to rest. After the 
elders had supped, the fight was renewed tmtil Labouchere 
succumbed. However, it was generally allowed that he had 
made a good show before a bigger man than himself. The 
next day the eyes of the combatants were bunged up, their 
noses swollen to bottle size, and their complexions coloured 
bright blue and green with bruises. They could not go into 
school. Balston was obliged to take notice of what had hap- 



i8s3] CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH 19 

pened, which he did with well-simulated indignation, and, 
when they were able to return to school, reported them to 
Hawtrey, who "swished" them both.^ 

Another contemporary of Mr. Labouchere's at Eton, the 
late Frederick Morton Eden, related a story about him at a 
dinner given to him some years ago, as the senior "Old 
Etonian," in the School Hall of the College. Whilst the old 
chapel was being restored, a temporary chapel of wood and 
iron was ran. up. The corrugated iron roof made the heat 
intolerable during the summer months, so Labouchere hit 
upon a plan to put a stop to the nuisance of "chapel in the 
shanty." One boy was to pretend to faint and four others 
were to carry him out. A fifth was to follow bearing the 
hats of the performers. The plan worked admirably. The 
service was brought to a temporary stop and the boys, as 
soon as they were outside, scampered merrily off and pro- 
cured some agreeable refreshment. The repetition of this 
comedy, of course, aroused the suspicion of the masters, but 
nevertheless, like many of Labouchere's intrigues in later 
life, it produced eventually the desired effect. There was 
no more chapel during the hot weather until the restoration 
of the" old chapel was complete. 

A reminiscence of his Eton days that Mr. Labouchere 
was fond of relating has already found its way into print, 
but will bear repetition, as all may not have read it. One 
day, his store of pocket-money being at high-water mark, he 
conceived the notion of doing the man about town for an 
hour or two ; so, having dressed himself with scrupulous care, 
he sallied forth, and, entering the best hotel in the place, 
engaged a private room, and in a lordly manner ordered a 
bowl of punch. The waiter stared but brought the liquor, 
and went away. The boy, having tasted it, found it horri- 
ble. He promptly poured it into the lower compartment 

' I am indebted to Lord Welby for the above anecdote. He heard it from 
the late Lord Bristol, who was Labouchere's fag at Eton, and also from the 
late Mr. Anthony Hammond. 



20 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1831- 

of an antique oak sideboard. He waited a little to see 
whether it would run out on to the carpet. Luckily the 
drawer was watertight, and Labouchere rang the bell again 
and proudly ordered from the amazed waiter a second bowl 
of punch. He poured this also into the oak sideboard, and 
in a few minutes rang for the bill, tipped the waiter majestic- 
ally, and swaggered out of the hotel, quite satisfied that he 
had won the admiration and respect of the whole staff. 

After the Christmas half of 1847, Labouchere left Eton. 
He was then in his seventeenth year, and, before going to 
the university, it was thought advisable to place him for a 
year or two with a private tutor. 

It is interesting, before we leave Labouchere's Etonian 
career, to record his views on fagging, that venerable insti- 
tution, which is generally considered by Englishmen to have 
contributed so largely towards their superiority to the rest 
of mankind. ' ' When I was at Eton, ' ' he wrote, ' ' fags thought 
that all was fair in regard to their masters. I had a master 
who used to send me every morning to a farmhouse to get 
him cream for his breakfast. On my return I invariably 
added a trifle of my milk to the cream and thickened my 
milk with an infusion of my master's cream. Thus, by the 
light of that revenge, which Lord Bacon calls a 'rude sense 
of justice,' I anticipated the watering process which has 
been practised by so many public companies. Sometimes 
he would have jugged hare. These occasions were my grand 
opportunity, and, unknown to him, I used to pour out into 
my own slop basin a portion of the savoury mess, and conceal 
the deficit by an addition of pure water. Fagging in fact, 
is productive of more evil to the fag than the fagger. The 
former learns all the tricks and dodges of the slave." ^ 

Labouchere's matured judgment of Dr. Hawtrey was 
expressed as follows : 

Dr. Hawtrey was the headmaster when I was at Eton. He was 
^ Truth, Aug. 8, 1877, 



i853] CHILDHOOD AKD YOUTH 21 

an amiable and kindly man and a fine gentleman. He probably- 
flogged about twenty boys every day, on an average. He did 
it with exquisite politeness, and, except on rare occasions, the 
whole thing was a farce. Four cuts were the ordinary applica- 
tion, and ten cuts were never exceeded. The proceedings took 
place in public, and any boy who had a taste for the thing might 
be a spectator. If the victim flinched there was a howl of exe- 
cration. Far from objecting to this, the doctor approved of it. 
I remember once that a boy fell on his knees, and implored him 
to spare him. "I shall not condescend to flog you, but I leave 
you to your young friends," said the doctor. I happened to be 
one of the young friends, and I remember aiding in kicking the 
boy round the quadrangle for about half an hour.^ 

The reflections of boys on the education to which they 
have been subjected are remarkably interesting, because 
they are so exceedingly rare. We have Rousseau's criticism 
of his upbringing, but it was penned when youth was behind, 
and it is tinged with an affectation of intellectual detach- 
ment and middle-aged self-consciousness which robs it of 
the spontaneity which would be its only recommendation. 
St. Augustine, when he wrote his confessions, knew far too 
much to be able to write with simple sincerity of his foolish 
youth. Labouchere's early note-books, unlike these master- 
pieces, possess the uncommon value of being youth's judg- 
ments upon youth, written with all the hardy ingenuousness 
of a clever boy, who was, besides being clever, extremely 
yoimg for his age. ^ About the period of his life which has 
been described Labouchere wrote, at the age of twenty-one: 
"I will give ... an outline of my life, and the different 
courses that led to my discovery of early wisdom. I went 
through the usual numbers of schools, by which I learnt that 
an English education, for the time and money that it con- 
sumes, is the worst that the world has yet produced. One 

^ Truth, Jan. 31, 1889. 

' The note-books from which the quotations in this chapter have been 
taken are in the possession of the Rev. John Labouchere of Sculthorpe Rectory, 
Fakenham. 



22 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1831- 

clergyman alone of all my masters knew how to teach. His 
conduct was perfectly arbitrary, and he gave no reason for 
it — while, in the several branches of learning, his pupils 
either made rapid progress or left his house. My acquaint- 
ance with him was of short duration. He insisted on my 
teaching in an infant school on Sunday, or leaving his house — 
and I foolishly preferred the latter. I was then too young to 
go to college, so I was transferred to a clergyman in Norfolk, 
the very antipodes of my former master. Here I amused 
myself, and was flattered for a year or two, and then went to 
the university. " 

In February, 1850, he went up to Trinity College, Cam- 
bridge. His tutor was Mr. Cooper. In his note-book 
describing the university period of his career Labouchere 
wrote: "My father sent me to college, where, instead of 
improving my mind (for manners, I own, must be bad to be 
improved by such a place), I diligently attended the race- 
course at Newmarket. I had a general idea that here (at 
the university) I should astonish the world by my talents — 
I attended no lectures, as I considered myself too clever to 
undergo the drudgery. I considered myself — on what 
groimds God knows — an orator and a poet. I went to the 
Debating Society and commenced a speech in favour of the 
regicides, but, to my astonishment, entirely broke down. 
To my equal astonishment, upon writing the first line of a 
prize poem, I found it impossible to find a second. To 
become known in the university was my ambition — ^my short 
cuts to fame had failed — ^it never entered my head to apply 
myself reaUy to study, so, in default of a better method, I 
resolved to distinguish myself by my bets on horse-races. I 
diligently attended every meeting at Newmarket and spent the 
evenings in a tavern, where the sporting students and sporting 
tradesmen assembled to gamble. At the end of two years I 
had lost about £6000, and I owed to most of mj?- sporting 
friends. . . . Upon a dispute with the College authorities my 
degree was deferred for two years, and I left the University." 



i853] CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH 23 

So many incorrect versions of Labouchere's dispute with 
the university have been given in various newspaper bio- 
graphical notices at different times that a short account of 
what actually did happen will not be out of place here. 

A court was held on April 2, 1852, at King's Lodge, to 
hear a complaint brought by the proproctor, Mr. Barnard 
Smith, against Henry Labouchere for having sent to various 
university officers a printed paper, signed by himself, im- 
puting unfair conduct to Mr. Barnard Smith towards himself 
whilst in the Senate House during an examination. 

What happened at the Senate House is best told in 
Labouchere's own words. I quote the printed letter which 
he sent to the university officers, and which was the cause 
of his leaving Cambridge before he took his degree. 

The undersigned went into the Senate House for the previous 
Examination on Monday last, and had not been there long before 
he was painfully surprised by the suspicions of one of the pro- 
proctors, the Rev. Mr. Barnard Smith of St. Peter's College. 
This gentleman, from the beginning of the Examination, con- 
tinued to watch the undersigned in so marked a manner as not 
only to be noticed by himself but by other members of the 
University, under examination, who sat near him. The under- 
signed felt much distressed at this special surveillance. He had 
done nothing to deserve suspicion of being likely to resort to any 
unworthy practices in the Senate House, and the knowledge that 
he was thus subject to what he felt to be little short of a direct 
personal insult hindered his giving undivided attention to the 
examination questions which he had to answer. 

Notwithstanding this discouragement, the undersigned sent 
in his answers, which he has since been assured by one of the 
Examiners were satisfactory. . . . 

On the day following (Tuesday) , having nearly answered all 
the questions, the undersigned was stopped by the Rev. Mr. B. 
S. and charged with mal-practices in the Examination, of which 
he was not guilty. 

Henry Labouchere. 

After a short inquiry, during which it was ascertained 



24 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1831- 

that Labouchere had been guilty of writing the above letter, 
the court delivered the following sentence: "The court being 
of opinion that the charge has been fully proved, and that 
the conduct of Mr. Labouchere has been highly reprehensible 
and injurious to the character and discipline of the Univer- 
sity, sentences Henry Labouchere to be admonished and 
suspended from his degree for two years." In the course 
of the inquiry, Labouchere defended himself with great 
ability, though unsuccessfully. 

I give his defence verbatim, as the detail with which he 
gave it is the best possible account of the circumstances 
which led up to his insubordinate act : 

The whole business seems so indefinite that it is almost impos- 
sible to ofiEer a defence. I am convened before the Vice-Chancel- 
lor for sending a printed notice to the Examiners and for bringing 
a charge against Mr. Barnard Smith. But what my copying or 
not copying in the Senate House has to do with it, it is difficult 
to say. But, as my copying has been brought forward and is 
supposed to bear on the subject, I am happy to have an oppor- 
tunity of disproving it. Mr. Fenwick, on being asked, brought 
forward 3 charges why I was sent out of the Senate House: 
first, for having a paper concealed which I refused to give to the 
Examiners; secondly, for asserting that the paper had nothing 
to do with the Examination; and thirdly, for owning that it had. 
Mr. Fenwick (who it appears had the direction of the case) made 
no further charge. Mr. Barnard Smith now brings an entirely 
different charge, which is that I slipped a piece of paper into my 
pocket, and that he imagines he saw me do so. Why he didn't 
stop me at the time he does not say. Now all the Examiners 
who had been examined here to-day, except Mr. Latham, say 
that from my general conduct I was suspected of copying on 
Monday. Mr. Fenwick, however, is more particular, and says 
that my position excited suspicion. Mr. Woollaston says that 
I did not appear to be occupied with the Examination. So that 
what my general conduct was is explained. Having partly 
finished 10 questions in the Scripture history, I, more as a rest 
than anything else, wrote a note to a friend asking him how he 



i853] CHILDHOOD AKD YOUTH 25 

had got on, and mentioned that I had just given a long answer 
to the loth question: I added, " I suppose the Shunamite woman 
was the person whose son was struck with the sun." While 
reading this note to myself, I saw Mr. Barnard Smith coming 
towards me ; upon which I threw it away as far as possible ; and 
upon his asserting that he had seen a paper in my hands I said 
that he had, but that I had no crib, nor had I in any way copied, 
that it was a note having nothing to do with the Examination. 
Not being in the habit of having mj'- word questioned I saw no 
reason for producing it. Mr. Barnard Smith, however, thought 
differently ; and, as the Examiners agreed with him, upon demand- 
ing its production I said that I had thrown it away, and it was 
probably somewhere on the ground. Having looked close by 
and not perceived it, I told Mr. Fenwick that I did n't see it. 
Mr. Fenwick, on this, ordered me to look for it, in a manner so 
offensive, that I took no further trouble about the matter. I then 
told the Examiners that, if they wished to know what was in the' 
note, there was a question about the Shunamite woman, and 
told them I had just finished the answer to that question. I 
then gave up my papers and left the Senate House. The infer- 
ence I believe drawn from the last two charges is that I told a lie. 
Upon this point any person may form his own opinion. I 
am asked whether I had a paper. The paper is by that time 
thrown away. I answered that I had. Had I denied it there 
would have been no evidence, and the matter would probably 
have dropped. 

According to the Examiner I had first said the paper had 
nothing to do with the Examination, and then, finding that the 
paper is not produced, tell them that the paper had to do with 
the Examination. I simply stated what it contained and should 
not have told a lie against myself. The fact was, not seeing the 
paper, and considering that Mr. Fenwick had ordered me to look 
for it in rather an offensive way, I told them what it contained, 
I had finished the Examination question at the time, and the 
question in the note was not put in with any desire to know 
whether it was right or wrong. I simply put in that I supposed 
it was right more for something to say than for anything else. 
But I certainly did not consider it had anything to do with the 
Examination in the way which Mr. Barnard Smith meant. 



26 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1831- 

With respect to Mr. Barnard Smith's impression that I slipped 
a piece of paper into my pocket, I wish that he had said so at 
the time, that I might have disproved it. I can only say now 
that there is a sufficient internal evidence in my answers to show 
that I did n't obtain assistance from any notes, as I had a general 
knowledge of the subject, and confined myself to general facts. 
After having been dismissed from the Senate House, and having, 
in vain, challenged an investigation before the Vice-Chancellor, 
as I understood the Examiners openly asserted that I had told a 
lie, I sent a circular to them denying the charge. I did this, 
lest at any time hereafter, such an action should be brought to 
my charge, and also that it had been unrefuted. I have now 
denied the charge, and for their individual opinion I care little. 

The cotirt asked, at this point, if Mr. Labouchere de- 
liberately wished these words to be recorded: he said "Yes" 
and then went on with his defence : 

But, as in their office of Examiners they had unjustly asserted 
that I told a lie, I did my duty in openly denying it. I mean to 
say that I sent this circular to the Examiners in their public 
capacity and not as private individuals. I sent it to justify 
myself from a charge which I consider unjust, and upon which 
I could not obtain an investigation. 

The immediate reflection that presents itself to the mind 
of any one who knew Labouchere well and who studies his 
defence is that it is curious that it should have been over a 
Scripture History paper that he was suspected of cribbing, 
for, thanks to his early evangelical training and his innate 
love of his Bible, Labouchere was almost phenomenally 
proficient in Scripture knowledge. He quoted the Bible, 
and rarely incorrectly, on every occasion — in his parliament- 
ary speeches, in his journalistic articles, and in private 
conversation — and he could, invariably, if questioned, give 
chapter and verse for the verification of his quotation. 

Two anecdotes have frequently been given in the press 
about Labouchere's alleged cribbing at Cambridge. I never 



i8s3] CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH 27 

heard him relate them himself, and they are probably legends 
of the kind that are bom in the journalist's brain whilst he 
is racking it for copy in the shape of anecdotic detail. The 
first is that his academic career terminated abruptly because 
he had made a bet with another undergraduate that he 
would crib in his Little Go examination without being caught, 
and that when caught he accused the examiner of being in 
collusion with the other party to the bet. The other is that 
during the examination he was observed to be frequently 
looking at something concealed beneath a sheet of blotting- 
paper. On being asked to produce it, Labouchere refused. 
But, when obliged to do so, it was found that the concealed 
object was the photograph of a popular variety artiste, whose 
bright eyes, he asserted, stimulated him to persevere in his 
academic efforts. 

There are, of course, any number of popular anecdotes of 
Labouchere's university days. A good one is the following. 
On one occasion, having taken French leave to London, he 
was unexpectedly confronted one morning in the Strand by 
his father, who looked extremely annoyed to see the youth 
there, when he imagined him to be occupied with his studies. 
Henry's wits as usual were on the alert. He returned his 
father's cold greeting with a surprised stare. "I beg your 
pardon, sir," he said, "I think you have made a mistake. 
I have not the honour of yotir acquaintance." He pushed 
by and was lost in the crowd. Rapidly consulting his watch, 
he found he could, by running, just catch a train for Cam- 
bridge. He did so, and what he had foreseen happened. 
Mr. Labouchere, senior, after having accomplished the busi- 
ness he was about, took the next train for Cambridge. On 
reaching the university he was ushered into his son's study, 
where he found him absorbed in work. He made no refer- 
ence to his rencontre in the Strand, being persuaded that it 
must have been a hallucination. 

Another story relates how he used to go about in a very 
ragged gown. One day the Master of Trinity, Whewell, 



28 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1831- 

came across him and said, "Is that a proper academic 
costume, Mr. Labouchere?" "Really, sir, I must refer you 
to my tailor," was the reply. 

Labouchere continues in his note-book to describe, with 
naive minuteness of detail, his search for wisdom after he 
left the university. "With great liberality, " he wrote, "my 
father paid my debts, and advised my return home. My 
family . . . was religious, and, finding my father's house 
dull, I had accustomed myself to live at a tavern in Covent 
Garden. . . . After remaining there for two or three weeks, 
I used to return home, and leave it indefinite from where I 
had come. Until my leaving College and the payment of 
my debts by my father, I had kept up an appearance of 
respectability at home. Now, however, I threw off all 
restraint, and openly lived at my tavern for about two 
months, during which I lost several hundred potmds at hells 
and casinos. " 

The tavern which Labouchere frequented at this period 
was far from being the haunt of vice which, with the gloomy 
sternness of moralising youth, he wished to depict it. It 
was a species of night club, known as Evans', and was the 
resort of all literary and artistic London. It constantly 
figures in Thackeray's novels and other books of the period 
as a place of Bohemian rendezvous and the scene of a good 
deal of rough-and-tumble jollity. The house, of which it 
formed the cellar, had once been the home of Sir Kenelm 
Digby. Above the tavern, or "Cave of Harmony" as 
Thackeray called it, was the hotel in which Labouchere had 
his rooms. In later years, that is to say in the later fifties 
and early sixties, the popularity of this place of conviviality 
increased so much that it was found necessary to pull down 
the little room where Labouchere used to listen every night 
to the singing of more or less rowdy songs, and build on its 
site a vast concert-room, with an annexe, consisting of a 
comfortable hall, hung with theatrical portraits, where 
conversation could be carried on. There was a private 



i853] CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH 29 

supper-room in the grill, and this annexe became a popular 
resort for men about town. Some of the smartest talk in 
London was to be heard at Evans', for it numbered among 
its patrons such wits as Douglas Jerrold, Thackeray, Lionel 
Lawson, Edmund Yates, Augustus Sala, Serjeant Ballantine, 
John Leech, Serjeant Murphy — and Henry Labouchere. 
The presiding spirit of the establishment was a great friend 
of Labouchere's. He acted as head waiter and was known 
as Paddy Green. He had commenced his career as a chorus- 
singer at the Adelphi Theatre, and had won for himself in 
all classes of society an immense popularity on account of 
his courtesy and unfailing good-humour. The prosperity of 
Evans' only waned when the modem music-halls, where 
women formed the larger part of the audience, became the 
fashion. * 

From the superior point of view of the maturity of 
twenty-one, Labouchere was inclined to survey, with an eye 
of undue severity, the follies he committed at the age of 
nineteen. He wrote: "Whenever I entered into conversa- 
tion with any person, I introduced the subject of gambling, 
and boasted of sums I had lost, which I appeared to consider, 
instead of a disgrace, a subject on which I might justly 
pride myself. During this period I believe I had a general 
wish to elevate myself to some higher position, as, while 
passing my days and nights in profligacy, my chief study was 
Dr. Johnson's Life and Lord Chesterfield's Letters to his SonJ^ 
And again: "Inflated with conceit I imagined myself equal 
to cope with all mankind. In society I was awkward, and 
therefore sought the society of my inferiors, while I en- 
deavoured to delude myself with the notion that I was a 
species of socialist and that all men were equal. Conver- 
sation, properly so-called, I had none. I could argue any 
subject, but not converse — my manners were boorish — I had 
never learnt to dance, so I seldom entered a ball-room, or if 

' Edmund Yates, Recollections and Experiences; Serjeant Ballantine, 
Experiences of a Barrister's Life. 



30 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1831- 

there, I pretended to despise the amusement, as I never 
owned myself incapable of anything. If I entered a drawing- 
room, I either held myself aloof from the company, or I 
argued some subject by the hour with my neighbour. In 
fact, in manners I was an outre specimen of an uncultivated 
English young man — the most detestable yahoo in creation." 

He continues: "From my tavern I was again rescued by 
my father, who sent me abroad imder the guidance of a 
species of Mentor, who was, unfortunately, totally imfitted 
for his task. Three days after leaving England we arrived at 
Wiesbaden, where there are public gaming tables. Here I 
felt myself at home, and the first day gained about £1 50. My 
Mentor, who was going to the hotel, offered to carry the 
money I had won, and give it back to me the next day. 
The next morning, however, on my asking for it, he refused 
to return it unless I promised not to play while at Wiesbaden. 
After my father had so often paid large sums for me, in 
gratitude I ought to have yielded. This, however, I refused 
to do, but remained two months at Wiesbaden, while my 
Mentor continued his travels. At last it was agreed that I 
should meet him at Paris, and there receive my money, 
where, I need not add, in a few days it was spent. " 

Some of Mr. Labouchere's most interesting articles in 
Truth in after years were the ones he was in the habit of 
writing, when he was on his summer holiday, describing the 
various resorts he visited, and he was always eager to recall 
reminiscences of his boyhood when he found himself at a 
place he had passed through in his youth. He wrote from 
Wiesbaden in 1890 : 

German watering-places are dull places now that the gam- 
bling at them has been abolished, and even those who did not play 
at their tables have discovered this. I am at Wiesbaden, When 
a jade repents of her ways and takes to propriety, she is little 
given to overdo respectability. So it is with this and other 
examples of roulette and trente et quarante. The respectability 
of the Wiesbaden of to-day is positively oppressive. Its devo- 



i853] CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH 31 

tion weighs upon the spirit. I remember being here nearly 
forty years ago. I was then a lad travelling on the continent 
with a bear-leader to enlarge my experience. The bear-leader 
and I never could quite agree what spot would prove the most 
improving. He wished to study still nature, I wished to study 
human nature. So, like Abram and Lot, we generally separated. 
He betook himself to the Carpathian Mountains, I sojourned 
here. Wiesbaden was then cosmopolitan. The tag-rag and 
bobtail of all nations resorted to it, and, if all of them were not 
quite sans reproche, they were all pleasant enough in their way. 
There was a vague notion that, somewhere or other, there were 
waters, but, where precisely they were, and what they cured, 
very few knew. The Kursaal was the centre of attraction, with 
its roulette and its trente et guarante.^ 

From Paris, Labouchere and his tutor returned to Eng- 
land, and, after a month passed at Broome Hall with 
occasional visits to his beloved Evans', it was arranged that 
he should make a trip to South America, where his family 
had had for many years very important commercial interests 
and could give him some respectable introductions. He 
noted his impressions of his journey and arrival in America 
in the most approved early Victorian guide-book manner, 
but, in spite of an apparent effort to be, at the same time, 
both stilted and elegant in style, his natural originality 
peeps out here and there: 

"On the 2nd of November, 1852, in the steam packet 
Orinoco, I set sail, or rather set steam, from England. For 
the first ten days I remained in bed in all the agonies of 
seasickness. Some persons, particularly poets, find some 
pleasure in a voyage, but I confess the nil nisi pontus et aer 
is to me the most distasteful sight in creation, especially 
when the pontus is rough. The passengers were chiefly 
Spaniards to Havana and Germans who were going to ' im- 
prove their prospects' — how I have no idea, but, from the 
appearance of the gentlemen, they might have done so with- 

' Truth, Sept. 4, 1890. 



32 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1831- 

out becoming millionaires. At nine we breakfasted, at 
twelve lunched, at four dined, and at seven tea 'd. The rest 
of the day was passed on deck. Through storm and sun- 
shine the majority of the foreigners played at bull, a species 
of marine quoits. The ladies always knitted, and the 
English read Dickens' Household Words. In the evening 
there was dancing. There was an unfortunate devil of a 
mulatto on board who offended the prejudices of the planters 
by dancing with the white ladies. 'Why,' they said, 'that 
fellow ought to be put up to auction unless anybody owns 
him.' In eating and these interesting diversions the day 
passed. The only incident that enlivened the voyage was, 
that one night the Germans had an immense bowl of punch 
brewed (I wish I had the recipe of that said punch, for a 
better brew I never tasted) and sang sentimental songs. One 
German went round and informed the English they were 
going to drink to die King of England, and, amid immense 
applause, they bawled out 'Gott save die Queen.' As the 
punch got to their heads the songs became more sentimental. 
A Bonn student seized the bowl, and wished to drink it to 
the Fatherland, when another, who saw no reason why the 
Bonn gentleman should consecrate the whole to his patriotism, 
knocked him down. This was the signal for a general row. 
Some were sick, some sang, while a little Jew, who, before, 
I had considered a steward, enlivened the scene by dancing 
about in his night-shirt. On coming up the next morning I 
found the Bonn student offering generally to fight a duel with 
any person who asserted he had misbehaved himself. As no 
one was valorous enough to do so, the student retired into 
' bull.' At St. Thomas we changed steamers and almost died 
of heat. The mulatto turned out very smart, which excited 
the ire of one of the planters, who said, ' Look at that fellow 
with a new coat, he ought to be diving about naked for half- 
pence in the water.' Decency, however, forbade the 
mulatto taking the kindly meant advice. Ten days after 
leaving St. Thomas we arrived at Vera Cruz. I ought to 



i853] CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH 33 

have felt some sort of enthusiasm on first seeing America, 
but a mosquito had stung me in the eye, so that I saw it 
under difficulties; indeed, a person must possess a large 
amount of enthusiasm to be aroused into any outward dis- 
play by the sandbanks and plaguish-looking shore of Vera 
Cruz. I had a letter to a merchant, who most hospitably 
entertained me at his house, where I spent two days bathing 
my eye in hot water. On the third day, in company with 
some friends, we left for Mexico in the diligence. In a 
European town we should have created some excitement 
marching to the coach office, each armed with guns, swords, 
and revolvers ad libitum. Here, however, no one even 
stopped to look at our martial appearance. At the diligence 
office we had a preliminary taste of the pleasture of travelling 
in Mexico — travellers are only allowed 25 lbs. of luggage, and 
as every person's portmanteau weighed twice as much, the 
clerk refused to allow any to go. While my companions were 
haranguing inside I slipped my portmanteau, which was far 
the largest, under the coachman's seat, and a dollar into his 
hand. During the journey I was looked upon as a villain 
by my fellow-passengers, because each thought that, if I had 
not existed, their traps would have taken the place of mine. 
Their position was certainly uncomfortable — their sole 
luggage was in their hands, consisting chiefly, as it appeared 
to me, of tooth-brushes which they had taken out of their 
trunks. It was four in the evening when we started. For 
several leagues the carriage was pulled along a railway by 
mules. This comfortable method of travelling soon came to 
an end, and, with it, all signs of a road ; we were jolted along 
a miserable path full of ruts, in part paved, or rather un- 
paved, by the Americans during their invasion, to make the 
road impassable. Little did they know the Mexicans, as this 
highroad from the chief seaport to the capital has never been 
repaired to the present time. Alison has given a glowing 
description of the beauties of the scenery between Vera Cruz 
and Mexico ; it might have been Paradise, but, in that infernal 



34 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1831- 

diligence, knocking my head every minute against the top, 
and holding on by both hands to the window, I was in no 
mood to enjoy the scenery. Fresh from Europe, I certainly 
was astonished at the luxuriant tropical jungle, filled with 
parrots and humming-birds instead of sparrows. While my 
eyes drank in this new scene, my nose drank in a succession 
of pole-cats. It is a journey of three days between Vera 
Cruz and Mexico. The first day and night is passed in a 
tropical heat, after which commences the ascent to the 
Grand Plateau of Mexico. A rose smells as sweet under 
another name, and, as it would be difficult to a European to 
pronounce the names, I do not much regret forgetting where 
we stopped the first night ; the second was passed at Puebla di 
los Angelos, a town remarkable for its superstition during the 
rule of the Aztecs, and equally remarkable at present for its 
intolerance. When the cathedral was building, two angels 
came down every night and doubled the work done during 
the daytime by the mortal masons. The cathedral is the 
most beautiful in the country ; every other house is a monas- 
tery and a church. At four we started again and jolted until 
three. Next morning, even under these difficulties, I could 
not help admiring the scenery. The only three snowy peaks 
in Mexico were all distinctly visible, while the road wound 
through mountains rising perpendicularly from the plain. 
One we passed is called after Cortes' wife, and exactly re- 
sembles in its outlines a giant asleep. At the close of the 
third day we reached Mexico. 

"When the city was in the midst of a lake and approached 
by causeways it might have excited the admiration of Cortes 
and his army. In the midst of a dry swamp it failed to excite 
mine. The advance of Cortes from the shore to the capital 
was wonderful, but I really think it was to be preferred to the 
diligence and unpaved road. All sufferings have an end, and 
mine ended in the diligence hotel. I had imagined, from 
travellers* accounts, that I should be lucky if I got a comer in 
a bam with half a dozen mtdes, but I found myself sleeping 



i853] CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH 35 

in a comfortable room and dining at a table d' h6te in a most 
distressingly civilised manner. " 

Labouchere does not think it necessary to his dignified 
narrative to mention the fact that his tutor accompanied him 
on this journey, but, upon a reference to his note-book, we 
find that the long-suffering Mentor formed one of the party. 
Labouchere is no less severe upon himself and his iniquities in 
America than he was in England. He wrote : 

"We landed at Vera Cruz and proceeded to Mexico. In 
two months I lost all my money and £250 besides at cards. 
To induce my Mentor to pay this sum I retired to a neigh- 
bouring town and stated my intention to remain there until 
he provided the money. Here, in the bena caliente, in a small 
inn, with no companion but the innkeeper, I remained for a 
month. Here I reconsidered my life and determined to 
commence afresh. I asked myself upon what ground I 
rested my title to differ from the common race of fools. 
Was I clever? A scholar? I had read a little. On most 
subjects I was ignorant — in society I could argue, but not 
converse. With a lady, with a duenna, with every person 
in whose society I found myself, I introduced my sole sub- 
ject — gambling. I told everybody that I had recently lost 
£6000, which I imagined raised me in their opinion. I could 
not dance, and I shunned society. I was conceited, and I 
was unwilling to confess my ignorance of anything. I was 
an abominable and useless liar, as I was fond of relating 
adventures of myself that had really never taken place. I 
was ready to make acquaintance with every person who 
spoke to me. Of music, drawing, and all the lighter arts I 
knew absolutely nothing. I was one thing and one alone — a 
gambler — on that subject I could be eloquent ; but I felt that 
I could not consider myself superior to the generality of man- 
kind on this groimd alone. In playing even I failed, because, 
though I theoretically discovered systems by which I was 
likely to win, yet, in practice, I could command myself so 
little that upon a slight loss I left all to chance. " 



36 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1831- 

The last entry in his note-book was made by Labouchere 
in the seclusion of this little inn at Quotla di Amalpas, and it 
ends abruptly. Perhaps it was interrupted by the arrival of 
the Mentor, after his receipt of the letter, the draft of which 
is given further on. 

''In my inn at Quotla di Amalpas I determined on reach- 
ing the States to entirely give up gambling. A gambler 
requires to possess the greatest command over himself, in 
which I entirely failed. To be very reserved — a reserved 
person is always supposed to be wiser than his neighbours. 
To be engaged in as many intrigues as is possible with ladies 
— nothing forms character so much as intrigues of this 
description — probatum est. To learn with a good counten- 
ance to pay delicate compliments and to. ..." 

In the flap of his note-book is the draft of the letter to his 
tutor, referred to above, which must be quoted, as it is so 
extremely characteristic of the man whose letters were ever, 
to the very end of his life, the most frankly illuminative docu- 
ments as to the state of mind through which he might be 
passing. Incidentally, also, it cannot fail to suggest to the 
reader a gleam of compassion for the problems and trials 
which must have been the lot of its recipient. Here it is : 

Quotla di Amalpas. 

Dear Sir, — I have just come back from Cuernava, where I 
rode over the worst road even in Mexico. Pray do not trouble 
yourself to exercise your forbearance, or make excuses, as I can 
assure you they are not wanted. If you find the slightest pleas- 
ure or amusement in writing to innkeepers not to give me money, 
write to every one in the country, but do not give yourself the 
trouble to tell me you have done so, as it is a matter of unimport- 
ance to me. My stopping in Mexico cannot now be helped, as 
I certainly shall not leave before getting some money, and I 
must then go to England to pay it. I had intended not to gamble 
in America, because of having to pay a double interest — but 
man proposes and God disposes. As R says, I made up a 



i853] CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH 



37 



story to avoid paying liim. I could not at present leave my 
gambling debts unpaid, or he would be believed. I shall borrow 
some money here, and send to England (not to my father) for 
some to pay it, and then go to England to pay it when it becomes 
due. It is a pity having to go back as I should have Hked to see 
a little more of America, but what is done is done, and cannot 
be helped. — Yours truly, 

Henry Du Pre Labouchere. 

P'S. — I have been offered a place as croupier at a Monte 
bank, so I shall not starve. 



CHAPTER III 
TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 

(1853-1864) 

WHETHER the Mentor resigned his job in despair 
about the time his pupil was making prudent resolu- 
tions in the seclusion of the little inn at Quotla di Amalpas, 
or whether it was decided by the parental authority that 
Labouchere might as well continue his search for wisdom in 
Mexico by himself, is not certain; but it would seem that, 
just about three months after his landing at Vera Cruz, he 
parted company with all his English friends, and, with a 
surprisingly small sum for such an adventure in his pocket, 
rode off, and wandered for eighteen months all over the 
country. Then he returned to the capital, and fell in love 
with a lady of the circus. The published legends belonging 
to this period of his career are legion. The authority for 
them appears to be almost always Mr. Joseph Hatton, who 
was the first writer to produce a biographical sketch of the 
editor of Truth. He wrote it for Harper'' s Magazine, where 
it formed part of a series which, in 1882, was published in 
England under the title of Journalistic London. According 
to Hatton, Labouchere gave him certain details of his past 
in an interview which took place at his house in Queen Anne's 
Gate, so that Hatton's evidence, in so far as viva voce reminis- 
cences are reliable, is unimpeachable.^ 

' Joseph Hatton, Journalistic London. 

38 



1853-1864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 39 

Labouchere told him that he travelled with the troupe to 
which the lady he admired belonged, and got the job of door- 
keeper. The circus was a popular one, but the crowds who 
flocked to it were not all in a position to pay their entrance 
with hard cash, so that he was authorised by the proprietors 
to accept payment in kind — usually consisting of oranges or 
small measures of maize. A very similar story is related 
about him as occurring a year or two later when he was 
attache at Washington, and is corroborated for me by Sir 
Audley Gosling, to whom Labouchere related it one day in 
his house in Old Palace Yard. Sir Audley noticed hanging 
on the wall a large playbill, and asked what it was. 

"It's a funny story, " replied Labouchere ; " I will tell you 
about it. When attache at Washington I was in the habit of 
attending almost nightly a circus, standing often at the 
artistes' entrance to the ring. The proprietor had often 
scowled at me, and one night asked me what I meant by 
trespassing on sacred ground. I told him I had formed an 
honourable attachment for one of his ladies, and simply 
stood in the passage to kiss the hem of her robe as she passed 
by. ' Get out of this, you d — d loafer, ' he said. And I got 
out. A few months later I pointed out to my chief notices 
in the New York press of a certain American sparkling wine 
called, after the district where it was grown, 'Kitawber. ' 
I told him I thought a report should be made on this new 
vintage, and volunteered to draw up a report for the Foreign 
Office. He seemed surprised by my assiduity and very 
unusual zeal (for I never did a stroke of work), and said: 
'By all means go — that is a capital idea of yours.' The 
truth was my circus had removed to Kitawber and with it 
my fair lady of the haute ecole, so thither I proceeded. I 
presented myself to the proprietor, my rude friend, and told 
him I wished for an engagement with his troupe without 
salary. He asked me what my line was, and I told him 
standing jumps. Some obstacles were placed in the ring, 
over which I jumped with great success, and my name 



40 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1853- 

figures on the playbill you see hanging there as the ' Bounding 
Buck of Babylon.* I wore pink tights, with a fillet round my 
head. My adorable one said I looked a dear. " 

It is more probable that these two stories are different 
versions of one and the same adventure than that he twice 
followed a travelling circus. No doubt, in recounting the 
tale, he confused the chronology. 

It would appear that the well-known story of his six 
months' residence among the Chippeway Indians, usually 
related as an incident occurring in the off moments of his 
diplomatic career, really took place towards the end of 1853. 
Joseph Hatton, without mentioning any dates, relates it as 
follows: "By and by he tired of this occupation {i. e. 
travelling with the circus), and went to the United States. 
He found himself at St. Paul, which was then only a cluster 
of houses. Here he met a party of Chippeway Indians going 
back to their homes. He went with them and lived with 
them for six months, hunting buffalo, joining in their work 
and sports, playing cards for wampum necklaces, and living 
what to Joaquin Miller would have been a poem in so many 
stanzas, but which, to the more prosaic Englishman, was just 
seeing life and passing away the time." More than half a 
century later, when Mr. Labouchere was living at Pope's 
villa, he invited all the Indian chiefs and their families, who 
were at that time taking part in Buffalo Bill's Show called 
"The Wild West," to spend a Sunday with him at Twicken- 
ham. They accepted the invitation, and arrived betimes in 
the morning. Mrs. T. P. O'Connor, who was a visitor at the 
villa on the occasion, gives a graphic account of Mr. La- 
bouchere' s recognition, in the person of one of the Chippe- 
ways, of the son of one of the nomadic friends of his early 
youth. She goes on to tell the story of Mr. Labouchere's ad- 
ventures with the Indians, as she had often heard him tell it. 

Nearly sixty years ago, [she says], Henry Labouchere, then 
an adventurous lad, made a journey in the west of America. 



1864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 41 

Minneapolis was at that time called St. Anthony's Falls, and 
while he was there a far-seeing young chemist begged him to 
buy the land on which Minneapolis stands — it was to be sold for 
a very small sum, now it is worth many millions. He travelled 
still farther west with the Chippeways, who were going to their 
hunting fields. The great chief, Hole in Heaven, was very friendly 
with him, and he camped in one of their wigwams for six weeks, 
the sister of the chief being assigned to wait upon him. She 
cooked game to perfection, roasting wild birds in clay and larger 
game before a fire. The game in those days was very plentiful 
and tame, not having found out man to be their natural enemy. 
Sometimes prairie chickens came near enough to be knocked on 
the head, and great herds of buffalos still ranged the plains. 
The Indians often killed a buffalo, but Mr. Labouchere was not 
lucky enough to get one for himself. He saw an Indian war-dance, 
but discreetly, from a slit in the door of his wigwam, as Hole 
in Heaven said that, friendly as they were, at this sacred rite a 
white face might infuriate them even to the use of the tomahawk. 
Mr. Labouchere lingered among these American gentlemen until 
the last steamer had departed from Fond du Lac, so he was 
obliged to travel in a canoe until he reached the eastern end of 
the lake.^ 

After his experiences in the Wild West, Labouchere made 
New York his quarters for some time, and occupied himself 
with a careful study of the institutions, political and other- 
wise, of the American nation, for which he acquired at this 
period of his life a profound and lasting admiration. In 1883 
he was writing to Mr. Joseph Chamberlain on the subject of 
Radical policy, and he said in the course of his letter: " I was 
caught young and sent to America ; there I imbibed the po- 
litical views of the country, so that my Radicalism is not 
a joke, but perfectly earnest. My opinions of most of the 
institutions of this country is that of Americans — that they 
are utterly absurd and ridiculous. " ^ He constantly through- 
out his career drew upon his youthful reminiscences of 

' Mrs. T. p. O'Connor, /, Myself. 

* For the rest of this interesting letter see Chapter X. 



42 HENRY LABOUCHEKE [1853- 

America to point a moral or draw a comparison, almost 
invariably favourable to the transatlantic people. In a 
famous article which he wrote in 1884, to demonstrate to the 
public the wide divergency existing at that time between 
Whig and Radical principles, while discussing the financial 
relations of the Crown with the country, he said : 

The President of the United States regards himself as gener- 
ously treated with a salary of £10,000 per annum. We give 
half this sum to a nobleman who condescends to walk before the 
Chief of the State on ceremonial occasions with a coloured stick 
in his hand; and we spend more than five times this sum in 
keeping a yacht in commission and repair on which our sovereign 
steps two or three times in twenty years ! 

In the same article he compared the English system of 
education with the American : 

If M * * * * wishes to learn what our schools ought to be, let 
him go to the State of Illinois. A child there enters school at the 
age of six. Each school is divided into ten grades; at the end of 
each year there is an examination, and a child goes up one or more 
grades according to his proficiency. A lad going through all the 
grades acquires an excellent liberal education ; if he passes through 
the "high school" he is, by a very long degree, the educational 
superior of the majority of our youths who have spent years at 
Eton or at Harrow. All this does not cost his parents one cent. 
Rich and poor alike send their children to the public schools, 
and thus all class prejudice is early stamped out of the American 
breast. Another advantage of these schools is that boys and girls 
are taught together. The girls thus learn early how to take care 
of themselves, and the boys' manners are softened. When grown 
up, boys and girls are not kept apart as though they were each 
other's natural enemies, nor are there any ill effects from their 
associating together. If some marry, the relations of those who 
do not are those of brothers and sisters. The Duke of Wellington 
is reported to have said that Waterloo was won in the Eton 
playing fields. Not only was the Union maintained in many 
battlefields, but America has become the most forward nation 



1864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 43 

in the world owing to her schools. How pitiably small and 
narrow does our school system appear in comparison with theirs ! 
Why cannot we do what has been done in America? Why? 
Because the land is too full of men . . , ignorant, servile, and 
aware that their only chance of succeeding in life is to perpetuate 
class distinctions, and to deprive the vast majority of their fellow- 
citizens of the possibility of competing with them by depriving 
them of the blessings of any real education. Which would be 
to the greater advantage of the country, a Church Establishment 
such as ours, or a school establishment such as that of Illinois? 
What Radical entertains a doubt? If so, why do not we at once 
substitute the one for the other ?^ 

In his letters to the Daily News diiring the autumn and 
winter of 1870 and 1 871, he wrote from Paris commenting on 
the behaviour of the English and American officials of the 
Diplomatic Corps who remained in Paris during the siege. 
" Diplomats, " he wrote on September 28th, "are little better 
than old women when they have to act in an emergency. 
Were it not for Mr. Washburne, who was brought up in the 
rough-and-ready life of the Far West, instead of serving an 
apprenticeship in Courts and Government offices, those who 
are still here would be perfectly helpless. They come to him 
at all moments, and although he cannot speak French, for all 
practical purposes, he is worth more than all his colleagues 
put together. " In another letter he gives an amusing picture 
of the worried English charge d'affaires, immersed in official 
trivialities: "A singular remonstrance has been received at 
the British Embassy, In the Rue de Chaillot resides a cele- 
brated English courtesan, called Cora Pearl, and above her 
house floats the English flag. The inhabitants of the street 
request the Ambassador of England, 'a country, the purity 
and decency of whose manners is well known,' to cause this 
bit of bunting, which is a scandal in their eyes, to be hauled 
down. I left Mr. Wodehouse consulting the text-writers 
upon international law, in order to discover a precedent for 

' "Radical and Whigs," Fortnightly Review, Feb. i, 1884. 



44 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1853- 

the case. " It contrasts sharply enough with the gHmpse he 
gives his readers of the American Embassy. "I passed the 
afternoon, " he wrote on November 15th, "greedily devouring 
the news at the American Legation. It was a curious sight — 
the Chancellerie was crowded with people engaged in the 
same occupation. There were several French journalists, 
opening their eyes very wide, under the impression that this 
would enable them to understand English. A Secretary of 
Legation was sitting at a table giving audiences to unnum- 
bered ladies who wished to know how they could leave Paris; 
or, if this was impossible, how they could draw on their 
bankers in New York. Mr. Washburne walked about 
cheerily shaking every one by the hand, and telling them to 
make themselves at home. How different American diplo- 
matists are to the prim old women who represent us abroad, 
with a staff of half a dozen dandies helping each other to do 
nothing, who have been taught to regard all who are not of 
the craft as their natural enemies. " Yet another quotation 
from Labouchere's journalistic correspondence, illustrating 
his predilection for things American: "The ambulance which 
is considered the best is the American. The wounded are 
under canvas, the tents are not cold, and yet the ventilation 
is admirable. The American surgeons are far more skilful 
in the treatment of gunshot wounds than their French 
colleagues. Instead of amputation they practise resection 
of the bone. It is the dream of every French soldier, if he is 
wounded, to be taken to this ambulance. They seem to be 
under the impression that, even if their legs are shot off, the 
skill of the Esculapii of the United States will make them 
grow again. Be this as it may, a person might be worse off 
than stretched on a bed with a slight woimd imder the tents 
of the Far West. The French have a notion that, go where 
you may, to the top of a pyramid or to the top of Mont Blanc, 
you are sure to meet an Englishman reading a newspaper; in 
my experience of the world, the American girl is far more 
inevitable than the Britisher; and, of course, under the stars 



1864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 45 

and stripes which wave over the American tents, she is to be 
found, tending the sick, and, when there is nothing more to 
be got for them, patiently reading to them or playing at 
cards with them. I have a great weakness for the American 
girl; she always puts her heart in what she is about. When 
she flirts she does it conscientiously, and when she nurses a 
most uninviting-looking Zouave, or Franc-tireur, she does it 
equally conscientiously; besides, as a rule, she is pretty, a 
gift of nature which I am very far from undervaluing. " 

To resume our narrative. At home the parental and 
avuncular authorities had been at work, puzzling as to what 
career would best suit the young searcher for wisdom, the 
irrepressible Eton blood — the baby of the preparatory school, 
who, without his milk teeth, was able to confound the ruffi- 
ans of the cane and their assistants — the undaunted enemy 
of university dons and pedagogues. Finally, it was decided 
that the diplomatic service would be, at any rate for a time, 
the best safety-valve for the inquisitive youth. Henry 
Labouchere was on one of his unconventional tours in his 
beloved Wild West when he heard of his first diplomatic 
appointment. He was appointed attache at Washington on 
July 16, 1854. 

Mr. Crampton had been Minister at Washington since 
1852, and, at the time of Labouchere taking up his duties at 
the Legation, Lord Elgin, then Governor of Canada, was 
on a special mission to Washington. Mr. Crampton had 
not succeeded in making himself at all agreeable to the 
American statesmen, and during the Crimean War he had 
nearly caused a rupture between Great Britain and the 
United States over the question of recruiting. The exigen- 
cies of war had brought about the reprehensible practice of 
raising various foreign corps and pressing them — or crimping 
them — into the British service. Crampton very actively 
forwarded the schemes of his Government by encouraging 
the recruiting of soldiers within the territories of the United 
States. It was not, however, until 1856 that the President 



46 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1853- 

of the United States came to a determination to discontinue 
official intercourse with him on account of the recruiting 
question. This necessitated his removal from Washington, 
and the feeling against him in the United States was so strong 
that diplomatic relations were not renewed with Great 
Britain for more than six months. "" There is no evidence of 
any kind to support the statements that have appeared from 
time to time in the press, to the effect that Henry Labouchere 
was involved in the crimping business. During the time he 
spent at Washington he seems to have been an assiduous 
worker — to which the number of despatches in his hand- 
writing preserved in the archives of the Record Office bear 
witness. 

He related in Truth, some years later, how his energy 
received a check at the very outset of his career. "When 
I joined the diplomatic service," he said, "I was sent as 
attache to a legation where a cynic was the minister. New 
brooms sweep clean. Every morning I appeared, eager to be 
employed, a sort of besom tied up in red tape. Said the 
cynic to me : ' If you fancy that you are likely to get on in the 
service by hard work, you will soon discover your error; far 
better will it be for you if you can prove that some relation of 
yours is the sixteenth cousin of the porter at the Foreign 
Office. ' It was not long before I discovered that the cynic 
was right." 

It was the fate of Henry Labouchere, wherever he went, 
to create an atmosphere of unconventionality, which formed 
a fitting background for the numberless stories which seem 
still to collect and grow roiuid his name as time goes on. 
During one of Mr. Crampton's absences from the Legation, 
he had an opportimity of exercising the official reserve and 



' It is interesting to note that Mr. Crampton's proceedings in America did 
not stand in his way, so far as promotion in the service was concerned. He 
was appointed Envoy-Extraordinary at Hanover almost immediately; Lord 
Palmerston insisted upon his being made a K.C.B., and he became Ambassador 
at St. Petersburg in 1858. (Dictionary of National Biography.) 



1864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 47 

discretion for which the EngHsh diplomats have always been 
so famous. An American citizen called one morning to see 
Mr. Crampton. "I want to see the boss," he said. "You 
can't— he is out," replied Labouchere. "But you can see 
me. " "You are no good, " replied the American. " I must 
see the boss. I'll wait." "Very well," calmly said the 
attache, and went on with his letter-writing. The visitor 
sat down and waited for a considerable time. At last he 
said: "I've been fooling roimd here two hours; has the chief 
come in yet?" — "No; you will see him drive up to the front 
door when he returns. "—" How long do you reckon he will 
be before he comes?" "Well," said Labouchere, "he went 
to Canada yesterday; I should say he '11 be here in about six 
weeks." 

In spite of all his good resolutions Labouchere was still a 
gambler, and once found himself in what might have been an 
awkward scrape owing to this propensity. All who knew 
him at all intimately must often have heard him tell the 
following episode, which I will relate as nearly as possible in 
his own words : "While I was attache at Washington I was 
sent by the minister to look after some Irish patriots at 
Boston. I took up my residence at a small hotel, and wrote 
down an imaginary name in the hotel book as mine. In the 
evening I went to a gambHng estabHshment, where I lost 
all the money I had with me except half a dollar. Then I 
went to bed, satisfied with my prowess. The next morning 
the bailiffs seized on the hotel for debt, and all the guests 
were requested to pay their bills and to take away their 
luggage. I could not pay mine, and so I could not take away 
my luggage. All that I could do was to write to Washington 
for a remittance, and to wait two days for its arrival. The 
first day I walked about, and spent my half dollar on food. 
It was summer, so I slept on a bench on the common, and 
in the morning went to the bay to wash myself. I felt 
independent of all the cares and troubles of civilisation. 
But I had nothing with which to buy myself a breakfast.. 



48 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1853- 

I grew hungry and, towards evening, more hungry still, so 
much so that I entered a restaurant and ordered dinner, 
without any clear idea how I was to pay for it, except by 
leaving my coat in pledge. In those days Boston restau- 
rants were mostly in cellars, and there was a bar near the 
door, where the proprietor sat to receive payment. As I 
ate my dinner I observed that all the waiters, who were 
Irishmen, were continually staring at me, and evidently 
speaking of me to each other. A guilty conscience made me 
think that this was because I had an impecunious look, and 
that they were discussing whether my clothes would cover 
my bill. At last one of them approached me, and said: "I 
beg your pardon, sir; are you the patriot Meagher?" Now 
this patriot was a gentleman who had aided Smith O'Brien 
in his Irish rising, had been sent to Australia, and had 
escaped thence to the United States. It was my business to 
look after patriots, so I put my finger before my lips, and 
said: "Hush!" while I cast up my eyes to the ceiling as 
though I saw a vision of Erin beckoning to me. It was felt 
at once that I was Meagher. The choicest viands were 
placed before me, and most excellent wine. When I had 
done justice to all the good things I approached the bar and 
asked boldly for my bill. The proprietor, also an Irishman 
said: "From a man like you, who has suffered in the good 
cause, I can take no money ; allow a brother patriot to shake 
you by the hand. " I allowed him. I fiu-ther allowed all the 
waiters to shake hands with me, and stalked forth with the 
stem, resolved, but somewhat condescendingly dismal air 
which I have seen assumed by patriots in exile. Again I 
slept on the common, again I washed in the bay. Then I 
went to the post office, found a letter for me from Washing- 
ton with some money in it, and breakfasted. " 

Another anecdote Labouchere was fond of recalling about 
his Washington days was the following : Having planned a 
little holiday excursion, he found at the Chancellerie a letter 
awaiting him, addressed in the well-known handwriting of his 



1864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 49 

chief. Shrewdly suspecting that the instructions it contained 
would render his holiday impossible, he put the letter un- 
opened in his coat-tail pocket, and carried out with great 
satisfaction to himself his holiday intentions. Then he 
opened his letter, and found that his suspicions of its contents 
had been very well founded. He wrote a nice letter of 
apology to his chief, beginning, "Your letter has followed me 
here," which was, after all, nothing but the simple truth! 

"It is a funny thing," Labouchere would often say, 
speaking of treaties and diplomatic negotiations in general, 
"to notice on what small matters success or the reverse is 
dependent"; and he would then relate how, when he was 
attache at Washington, he went down with the British 
Minister to a small inn at Virginia to meet Mr. Marcy, the 
Secretary of State for the United States, for the purpose of 
discussing a reciprocity treaty between Canada and the 
United States. Mr. Marcy, in general the most genial and 
agreeable of men, was as cross as a bear, and would agree to 
nothing. Labouchere asked the secretary to tell him, in 
confidence, what was the matter with his chief. The secre- 
tary replied : " He is not getting his rubber of whist. " After 
that the British Minister proposed a rubber of whist every 
night, which he invariably lost. Mr. Marcy was im- 
mensely pleased at beating the Britishers at, what he called 
"their own game, " and his good humour returned. "Every 
morning," Labouchere related, "when the details of the 
treaty were being discussed, we had our revenge, and scored 
a few points for Canada. " 

Labouchere was transferred to the Legation at Mimich in 
December, 1855. "Old King Louis was then alive," he 
wrote thirty years later, "although he had been deposed for 
making a fool of himself over Lola Montes. I used frequent- 
ly to meet him in the streets, when he always stopped me to 
ask how Queen Victoria was. I had at last respectfully 
to tell him that Her Majesty was not in the habit of writing 
to me every day respecting her health. " 



50 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1853- 

From Munich he went to Stockholm in 1857. I can- 
not resist quoting in full his account of the duel he fought 
while at Stockholm with the Austrian charge d'affaires, it is 
so extremely characteristic of him both in spirit and style. 

At Stockholm "I found favour with my superiors for 
the curious reason that I challenged an Austrian charge 
d'affaires. Never was there a more absurd affair. There was 
an Englishman who had been challenged by a Swede, whom 
he declined to fight. A few days later the Englishman went 
with my Minister to a box in the theatre. The next day at 
a club the Austrian charge d'affaires said before me and 
others that Englishmen had odd ideas of honour, and more 
particularly English Ministers. I replied that Englishmen 
were not so silly as to fight duels, and that the English Minis- 
ter was not a dishonourable man for appearing in a theatre 
with his countrymen. As it was generally felt that I ought 
to challenge this Austrian, I ' put myself in the hands ' of the 
French and Prussian Ministers. A few hours later my 
seconds came to me. I expected that they were going to tell 
me that the Austrian had apologised. Not at all. With a 
cheerful smile they observed : ' It is arranged for to-morrow 
morning — pistols. ' At seven o'clock a.m. they reappeared. 
Their countenances were downcast. ' I have lost the mould 
for the bullets of my duelling pistols, ' observed the Prussian, 
'and we have had to borrow a pair of pistols, for whose 
accuracy of aim I cannot vouch.* This inwardly rejoiced 
me, but, of course, I pretended to share in the regret of my 
seconds. We sat down to an early breakfast. 'You are 
young, I am old, ' said the Frenchman ; ' would that I could 
take your place. ' I wished it as sincerely as he did, but I 
tried to assume an air of rather liking my position, and I 
grinned a ghastly grin. Then we started for the park. The 
opposition had not arrived ; but there was a surgeon, who had 
been kindly requested to attend by my sympathising friends. 
'An accident may happen,' observed the Prussian; 'do 
you wish to confide to me any dispositions that you may 



1864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 51 

desire to be carried out after ? ' and he sighed in a horribly 

suggestive manner. ' No, ' I said ; I had nothing particular 
to confide ; and as I looked at the surgeon I thought what an 
idiot I was to make myself the target for an Austrian to aim 
at, in order to establish the principle that Englishmen have a 
perfect right to decline to fight duels. There was a want of 
logic about the entire proceeding that went to my heart. 
To be killed is bad enough, but to be killed paradoxically is 
still worse. Soon the Austrian and his seconds appeared. 
I never felt more dismal in my life. The Austrian stood 
apart; I stood apart. The surgeon already eyed me as a 
'subject.' The seconds constilted; then the Frenchman 
stepped out twelve paces. He had very short legs, and they 
seemed to me shorter than ever. After this came the loading 
of the pistols. Sometimes, I thought, seconds do not put in 
the bullets; this comforted me, but only for a moment, for 
the bullets were rammed down with cheerful energy. By 
this time we had been placed facing each other. A pistol was 
given to each of us. 'I am to give the signal,' said the 
Prussian; 'I shall count one, two, three, and then at the 
word fire, you will both fire. Gentlemen, are you ready?' 
We both nodded. 'One, two, three, fire!' and both our 
pistols went off. No harm had been done. I felt consider- 
ably relieved when to my horror the Frenchman stepped up to 
me, and said: ' I think that I ought to demand a second shot 
for you, but mind, if nothing occurs again, I shall not allow a 
third shot. ' 'Ye — es, ' I said; so we had a second shot, with 
the same result. Knowing that my Frenchman was a man of 
his word, I felt now that I might at no risk to myself display 
my valour, so I demanded a third shot . The seconds consulted 
together; for a moment I feared that they were going to grant 
my request, and I was greatly relieved when they informed 
me that they considered that two shots were amply sufficient. 
I was delighted, but I pretended to be most unhappy, and 
religiously kept up the farce of being an aggrieved person. "* 

^ Truth, May 23, 1878. 



52 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1853- 

He was at Frankfort and St. Petersburg between Novem- 
ber, 1858, and the summer of i860. While he was at Frank- 
fort he made the acquaintance of Bismarck, who was the 
Prussian representative at the restored Diet of Frankfort. 
Labouchere had a constitutional dislike of the German 
people, with the exception of the great Chancellor. He wrote 
some years later: "The only Prussian I ever knew who was 
an agreeable man was Bismarck. All others with whom I 
have been thrown — ^and I have lived for years in Germany — 
were proud as Scotchmen, cold as New Englanders, and 
touchy as only Prussians can be. I once had a friend among 
them. His name was Buckenbrock. I inadvertently called 
him Butterbrod. We have never spoken since ! " Bismarck 
was an eminently social person, fond of drinking and smoking, 
and many a time did Labouchere listen to his jovial loud- 
toned talk in the cafes at Frankfort. " Bismarck, " he wrote 
in later life, "used to pass entire nights drinking beer in a 
garden overlooking the Main. In the morning after a night 
passed in beer-drinking he would write his despatches, then 
issue forth on a white horse for a ride, and on his rettim, 
attend the Diet, of which he was a member. " * It is interest- 
ing to note how very similar were the judgments of these 
two exceedingly different characters upon the subject of 
diplomacy and its aspects of absurdity and pomposity. 
Bismarck wrote from Frankfort: "Frankfort is hideously 
tiresome. The people here worry themselves about the 
merest rubbish, and these diplomatists with their pompous 
peddling already appear to me a good deal more ridiculous 
than a member of the second chamber in all the pride of his 
lofty station. Unless external accidents should accrue, . . . 
I know exactly how much we shall effect in one, two, or five 
years from the present time, and will engage to do it all my- 
self within four-and-twenty hours, if the others will only be 
truthful and sensible throughout one single day. I never 
doubted that, one and all, these gentlemen prepared their 

' Truth, Feb. 8, 1877. 



1864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 53 

dishes a Veau, but such thin, mawkish water soup as this, 
devoid of the least symptom of richness, positively astounds 
me. Send me your village schoolmaster or road inspector, 
clean washed and combed ; they will make just as good diplo- 
matists as these."'' Of diplomatic literature Bismarck 
observed: "For the most part it is nothing but paper and 
ink. If you wanted to utilise it for historical purposes, you 
could not get anything worth having out of it. I believe it is 
the rule to allow historians to consult the F. O. Archives at 
the expiration of thirty years (after date of despatches, etc.). 
They might be permitted to examine them much sooner, for 
the despatches and letters, when they contain any informa- 
tion at all, are quite unintelligible to those unacquainted 
with the persons and relations treated of in them. "^ La- 
bouchere wrote in 1889: "If all Foreign Office telegrams were 
published, they would be curious reading. Years ago I was 
an attache at Stockholm. The present Queen, then Duchess 
of Ostrogotha, had a baby, and a telegram came from the 
Foreign Office desiring that Her Majesty's congratulations 
should be offered, and that she should be informed how the 
mother and child were. The Minister was away, so off I 
went to the Palace to convey the message and to inquire 
about the health of the pair. A solemn gentleman received 
me. I informed him of my orders, and requested him to say 
what I was to reply. "Her Royal Highness," he replied, 
"is as well as can be expected, but His Royal Highness is 
suffering a little internally, and it is thought that this is due 
to the milk of the wet nurse having been slightly sour 
yesterday evening." I telegraphed this to the Foreign 
Office. "3 

In a speech he made in the House of Commons, "• pro- 
testing against a sum of nearly £50,000 being voted for the 
salaries and expenses of the department for Her Majesty's 
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Labouchere said, 

I Busch, Our Chancellor. 'Ibid. J Truth, May 23, 1889. 

* Hansard, July 14, 1884. 



54 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1853- 

referring in particular to Foreign Office messengers, that 
very often these gentlemen were sent abroad, at a very large 
cost to the country, for no practical object whatever. They 
went on a certain route, and the business was made up for 
them as they went. He had had the honour to serve at one 
time under Sir Henry Bulwer at Constantinople. Now Sir 
Henry Bulwer was always ill; and on one occasion he re- 
membered making a calculation that a box of pills Sir Henry 
was anxious to obtain, and which was sent out by a Foreign 
Office messenger, cost the country from £200 to £300. 
Probably the pills did Sir Henry good, and pills were much 
more useful than a good deal of the stuff sent out by the 
Foreign Office. He went on to tell the House that he had 
himself been in the diplomatic service for ten years, and he 
had spent a great deal of his time in ciphering and deciphering 
telegrams, and that he could not remember half a dozen of 
them that any man, woman, or child in the whole world 
would have taken any trouble to decipher for any information 
that could have been derived from them. 

Labouchere used always to say that, while he was 
attache at Frankfort, he spent most of his time at Wiesbaden, 
Homburg, or Baden, because he found the Diet of the 
German Confederation "rather a dull sort of affair." He 
managed, however, to make a great many very staunch 
friends at this period of his life. One of these was the old 
Duchess of Cambridge. He was a frequent visitor at the 
Schloss of Ruppenheim, which was the summer meeting- 
place of the main stock and branches of the Hesses. The 
old Duchess made a great fuss over him, for he could speak 
the German of Hanover so well that she could understand his 
banter and enjoy it. His popularity at Frankfort, according 
to his own account, rested on a very simple basis. Great 
Britain was represented at the Diet by Sir Alexander Malet, 
one of the most popular chiefs to be found in the Service. 
" But I was even more appreciated than my chief, " he would 
relate, "and this is why. Sometimes there was a ball at the 



1864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 55 

Court, which we were expected to attend. At my first ball 
supper I found myself next to a grandee, gorgeous in stars 
and ribbons. The servant came to pour out champagne. 
I shook my head, for I detest champagne. The grandee 
nudged me, and said, 'Let him pour it out.' This I did, 
and he explained to me that our host never gave his guests 
more than one glass, 'So you see, if I drink yours, I shall 
have two. ' After this there used to be quite a struggle to 
sit near me at Court suppers." 

Yet another ridiculous reminiscence of the Court of 
Darmstadt, dating from his attache days at Frankfort. Sir 
Alexander Malet was fond of whist, and it was felt, said 
Labouchere, that an English diplomatist could not be ex- 
pected to play the game for less than florin points. Such 
stakes, however, the fortime of no Darmstadt nobleman could 
stand. A sort of joint purse was therefore formed, which 
was entrusted to the three best players of the grand-ducal 
Court, and these champions encountered the Englishman. 
"It was amusing," Labouchere would relate, "to watch the 
anxiety depicted on all countenances : when the Minister won 
all was gloom ; when he lost, counts and countesses, barons 
and baronesses, skipped about in high glee, like the hills of 
the Psalmist. " 

Bismarck was Ambassador at St. Petersburg during the 
year that Labouchere was there as attache in i860, so it is 
very probable that he continued to imbibe wisdom from 
listening to the conversation of the great German, for whose 
powers of statecraft he always expressed the warmest 
admiration. The following amusing episode occurred during 
his year at St. Petersburg. He was in love with the wife of 
one of the gentlemen about the Court. So was a tall, smart 
young Frenchman. Labouchere was desperately jealous of 
Ms rival, but could think of no means of outwitting him. 
At a Court function they were both standing near the object 
of their admiration, the Frenchman making, it seemed to 
Labouchere, marked advances in the lady's favour. How- 



56 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1853- 

ever he was soon called away for some reason or another. 
Labouchere, in his eagerness to seize the opportunity and 
advance his own suit, inadvertently tipped his cup of black 
coffee over the lady's magnificent yellow satin train. He 
was in despair, but, seeing that she had not yet perceived the 
tragedy, he slipped the cup and saucer into his tail-coat 
pocket, and then, with an air of commiseration, drew her 
attention to the ruined gown, "Who did it? " she exclaimed 
furiously. Labouchere put his finger to his lips, at the same 
time looking significantly at the form of his rival, at that 
moment disappearing through the doorway. "I know who 
did it," he said, "but wild horses would not induce me to 
tell you. " Of coiu-se, the lady had followed the direction of 
his glance. She exclaimed : " That rufifian, I will never speak 
to him again as long as I live ! " History does not relate how 
the adventure proceeded for the handsome Frenchman's rival. 
Labouchere did not think much of the Russians. He 
used to say that they were like monkeys, eager to copy the 
manners of civilised Europe, but that the copy they succeeded 
in producing was a daub and not a picture, because they 
always exaggerated their originals. When they were polite, 
they were too polite; when they were copying Frenchmen, 
they were too much like dancing masters; and when they 
were copying Englishmen they were too much like grooms. 
He had an amusing account to give of a visit he once paid 
to a Russian country house. "Card-playing, eating and 
drinking — and more especially the latter," he related — 
"went on all day and nearly all night. I never could imder- 
stand where my bedroom was, for the excellent reason, as I 
at length discovered, that I had n't one. At a late hour I 
saw several of the guests heaping up in comers cushions 
which they had taken from sofas, to serve as beds, so I 
followed their example. When I woke up in the morning 
I could not see any apparatus to wash in, so I filled a china 
bowl with water, and, having dried myself with a table- 
cloth which I found in an adjoining room, I dressed. " He 



i864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 57 

gave a charming thumb-nail sketch of a Russian drawing- 
room, a propos of a visit of Mr. Augustus Lumley to the 
Russian capital. Mr. Lumley was a famous cotillon leader. 
"I was at St. Petersburg when Mr. Lumley arrived on a 
visit. He was solemnly introduced to the Russian leader of 
cotillons, who is invariably an officer of distinction, as a 
colleague. It was like the meeting between two famous 
generals, and reminded me of the pictures of Wellington and 
Blucher on the field of Waterloo. It took place at a ball, 
and the Russian, with chivalrous courtesy, offered to surren- 
der to his English colleague the direction of the cotillon." 

The Emperor of Russia^ once stood beside Henry 
Labouchere whilst he was playing at ecarte to watch his 
game. The occasion was a ball given by the Empress to the 
Emperor on his birthday. Labouchere and his adversary 
were both at four, and it was Labouchere's deal. "Now," 
said the Emperor, "let us see whether you can turn up the 
king. " Labouchere dealt, and then held out the turn-up 
card, observing: "Yoiu: orders have been obeyed, sir." The 
Emperor asked him, as often as a dozen times subsequently, 
how he had managed it, and never could be persuaded that 
it was a mere coincidence, and that the young attache had 
taken the chance of the card being a king. It was a trifling 
example of the luck, or its reverse, that seemed to be for 
ever crossing and recrossing Labouchere's path, in spite of his 
own belief in nothing but the logical sequence of events. 

A popular anecdote of his Petersburg days is the follow- 
ing: A fussy German nobleman pushed his way into the 
Chancellerie, where Labouchere was working, asking to see 
the Ambassador. "Please take a chair," said the secretary; 
"he will be here soon." "But, yoimg man," blustered the 
German, "do you know who I am?" And he poured out a 
string of imposing titles. Labouchere looked up in well- 
simulated awe. "Pray take two chairs," he remarked 
quietly, and went on writing. 
' Alexander II. 



58 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1853- 

When Khalil Pasha was recalled from being Ambassador 
in Paris, Labouchere published the following reminiscence of 
his year in the Russian capital: "Khalil Pasha once saved 
me from a heavy loss, and that is why I take an interest in 
him. He, a Russian, and I sat down one evening to have a 
quiet rubber. The Russians have a hideous device of playing 
with what they call a zero; that is to say, a zero is added to 
all winnings and losses, so that 10 stands for lOO, etc. When 
Khalil and the Russians had won their dummies, I found to 
my horror that, with the zero, I had lost about £4000. 
Then it came to my turn to take dummy. I had won a game, 
and we were playing for the odd trick in the last game. If I 
failed to win it I should lose about £8000. Only two cards 
remained in hand. I had marked up six tricks and my 
opponents five. Khalil had the lead ; he had the best trump 
and a thirteenth card. The only other trump was in the 
hands of the dummy. He had, therefore, only to play his 
trump and then the thirteenth card to win the rubber, when 
he let drop the latter card, for his fingers were of a very 
*thumby' description. Before he could take it up I 
pushed the dummy's trump on it and claimed the trick. 
The Russian howled, Khalil howled; they said this was very 
sharp practice. I replied that whist is essentially a game 
of sharp practice, and that I was acting in accordance with 
the rules. The lookers-on were appealed to, and, of course, 
gave it in my favour. Thus did I make, or rather save, 
£8000 against Russia and Turkey in alliance, through the 
fault of the Turk ; and it seems to me that the poor Ottoman, 
now that he is at war (1877) with his ally of the card-table, 
is losing the game, much as Khalil lost his game of whist to 
me. To have good cards is one thing, to know how to make 
use of them quite another. " ^ 

Labouchere used to tell a good story of how he got at the 
secrets of the Russian Government. His laundress was a 
handsome woman, and having made friends with her on 

I Truth, July i6, 1877. 



1864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 59 

other than professional grounds, she happened to mention 
that her husband was a compositor in the government 
printing office. The minutes of the Cabinet councils were 
printed in French, of which the printers, of course, under- 
stood nothing. Labouchere persuaded her, for a considera- 
tion, to obtain from her husband the loose sheets from which 
the minutes had been printed. They were brought to him 
by the faithful woman every week, concealed among his 
starched shirts and collars. As soon as Lord John Russell 
discovered the source of the interesting information that 
reached him from Petersburg, he put a stop to the simple 
intrigue. Labouchere would always wind up his narrative 
of this episode with the words: "For what reason, I wonder, 
did Russell imagine diplomacy was invented?" 

After Petersburg, Dresden was Labouchere's next 
appointment. He had previously assiduously studied the 
German language, in which, being a bom linguist, he was 
remarkably proficient. He had been for a time to Marburg 
to reside in a German family for the purpose of acquiring 
conversational fluency. All through his life one of his fads 
consisted in working out on how small an income an eco- 
nomical family might live in comfort, and he used frequently 
to commend the management of means practised in the 
bourgeois family at Marburg where he boarded. It con- 
sisted of a mother, two daughters, a father, and an element- 
ary maid-of-all-work. The daughters did the housework 
alternately. The daughter, whose turn it was to be the 
yoimg lady, used to dress herself gorgeously every afternoon 
and evening, receiving visitors or paying calls. She would 
play Chopin and Beethoven on the pianoforte, and make 
herself an exceedingly agreeable social personage. The 
following week she would retire to the domestic regions and 
be an excellent servant, while her sister took her turn as 
femme du monde. Occasionally the whole family, including 
Labouchere, would be invited to a party. It was the custom 
on such occasions for both the daughters to be "young 



6o HENRY LABOUCHERE [1853- 

ladies. " The maid-of -all- work would accompany them to 
the neighbour's house whither they had been bidden, carry- 
ing their suppers in paper bags — ^for the hospitality proffered 
at Marburg was intellectual, not material. All the guests 
brought similar paper bags, and at the conclusion of the 
repast the remains of the various meals were carefully col- 
lected by their respective owners, and carried home to figure 
at the next day's mittagessen. Labouchere used often to 
assert that the evening parties at Marburg were the most 
delightful and amusing ones he ever attended. While there 
he frequented the hospital, and attended the lectures given 
for the instruction of the medical students. He was always 
fond of developing extraordinary theories on the subject of 
medical science, more remarkable for their originality than 
for their probable ultimate utility. The authority upon 
which these theories would be based was invariably that of 
the lecturer at the Marburg Hospital. Even as late as 1905, 
Mr. Labouchere still remembered his medical student days. 
He wrote to one of his sisters in that year on the occasion of 
her son becoming a doctor: "A doctor is a good profession. 
I learnt doctoring at Marburg in order to learn German. 
I rather liked it, and have vainly offered to doctor people 
gratis since then, but no one seems inclined. " 

Between his diplomatic appointments at Frankfort and 
Petersburg, Labouchere spent several months at Florence, 
and he described in Truth how it was that he came to have a 
year's free time on his hands : " Once did I get the better of 
the Foreign Office. I was on leave in Italy when I received 
a notification that Her Majesty had kindly thought fit to 
appoint me Secretary of Legation to the Republic of Parana. 
I had never heard of this republic. After diligent inquiry, 
I learnt that Parana was a sort of Federal town on the River 
Plate, but that a few months previously the republic of that 
name had shared the fate of the Kilkenny cats. So I 
remained in Italy, and comfortably drew my salary like a 
bishop of a see in partibus infidelium. A year later came a 



1864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 61 

despatch couched in language more remarkable for its 
strength than its civility, asking me what I meant by not 
proceeding to my post. I replied that I had passed the 
twelve months in making diligent inquiries respecting the 
whereabouts of the Republic of Parana, hitherto without 
success, but if his lordship would kindly inform me where it 
was, I need hardly say that I would hasten there ! " ^ 

While in Florence Labouchere witnessed the revolution 
which deposed the Grand Duke and provided Tuscany with 
a provisional government of her own choice, preparatory to 
the union of all the Italian States under the King of Sardinia. 
He was a personal friend of Mr. (afterwards Sir) James 
Hudson, the English Minister at Turin, whose Nationalist 
sympathies, like Labouchere's, were well known, and he was 
an invaluable reporter to the Liberals in Turin of the news 
of the struggle for liberty in Tuscany. On the morning of 
the revolution, after the Grand Duke and his family had 
left the Pitti Palace, he, with many of his revolutionary 
friends, entered the forsaken home of Austrian royalty, and 
had the astuteness to procure on the spot what was left of 
the famous Mettemich Johannisberger for the newly founded 
Unione Club, of which he was a member. He had an amus- 
ing story to tell about the flight of the grand-ducal family 
from the City of Flowers, which is best repeated in his own 
words, as he used to relate it to his Florentine friends after 
he had returned to end his days in the place which he had 
loved so well in his youth. "The news was brought back 
here by some of the people who had seen them off the 
premises, that, on the road to Bologna, they all got out and 
stopped an hour or two at an inn, where they all sat in a row 
crying. After this had gone on for some time, it was dis- 
covered that the whole party had forgotten their pocket- 
handkerchiefs. Fortunately the Grand Duchess had on a 
white petticoat with very ample frills, so she went round to 
each of the grand-ducal family in turn, and wiped their 

' Truth, May 23, 1878. 



62 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1853- 

eyes and noses for them in the frills of her petticoat. And 
then she did the same for the ladies and gentlemen in 
waiting. " 

"Do I think that incident really is true?" he would reply 
to his incredulous audience, "probably not. But from what 
I know of royalties in general, and from what I remember 
about the grand-ducal family of Tuscany in particular, I 
think that it is exceedingly probable that they would start 
out on an expedition of that kind without a pocket-hand- 
kerchief between them."^ His personal reminiscences of 
Victor Emmanuel II. and of Cavour were of the raciest 
description and would enthral his hearers by the hour, told 
as only he could tell them, with all the decorative touches of 
local colour and local dialect. 

He was also very fond of telling a story about an out- 
rageous compliment he paid to a lady belonging to the Court 
of the Grand Duchess, which, if true, showed that at least 
one of the resolutions he had made in the inn at Quotla di 
Amalpas had been carried into successful practice: "The 
Grand Duchess of Tuscany had a venerable maid of honour 
above seventy years of age. She had piercing black eyes, 
and looked like an old postchaise, painted up and with new 
lamps. 'How old do you think I am?' she once asked me, 
with a simpering smile that caused my blood to run cold. 
I hesitated, and then said 'Twenty.' 'Flatterer,' she 
replied, tapping me with her fan, ' I am twenty -five. ' 

Having become third secretary in November, 1862, Labou- 
chere was appointed to Constantinople. He wrote in Truth 
nearly thirty years later: "I was once Secretary of Embassy 
at Constantinople and I passed my time reading up Lord 
Stratford's despatches before and during the Crimean War. 
No one could have recognised them as the originals from 
which Mr, Kinglake drew his material for a narrative of the 
Ambassador's diplomatic action. The fact was that Lord 
Stratford was one of the most detestable of the human race. 

» Florence Herald, Dec. 28, 1909. 



i864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 63 

He was arrogant, resentful, and spiteful. He hated the 
Emperor Nicholas because he had declined to receive him 
as Ambassador to Russia, and the Crimean War was his 
revenge. In every way he endeavoured to envenom the 
quarrel and to make war certain. His power at Constanti- 
nople was enormous. This was because, whilst the Ambassa- 
dors of other Powers changed, his stay there seemed eternal. 
A Grand Vizier, or a Minister of Foreign Affairs, knew that, 
if he offended the English Ambassador, he would never 
cease plotting to drive him out, and to keep him out of power. 
He therefore thought it better to keep on good terms with 
him and to submit to his arrogance. But Lord Stratford 
never used his power for good. It was enough for him to get 
the Sultan to publish a decree. This he would send home as 
evidence of good government. He never, however, explained 
that the decree, when published, remained a dead letter. 
When Sir Henry Bulwer (Lord Balling) was sent as Com- 
missioner to the Principalities, he passed a considerable time 
(as indeed was necessary) at Constantinople. Lord Stratford 
knew that Sir Henry wanted to replace him, and he feared 
that he would succeed in doing so. His rage and indignation 
were therefore unbounded. One day the Ambassador and the 
Commissioner were together at the Embassy. *I know,* 
said the Ambassador, 'that you are trying to get my place,* 
and he shook his fist in the face of Sir Henry, who mildly 
surveyed him and shrugged his shoulders. " 

Sir Horace Rumbold writes charmingly of Henry Labou- 
chere at Constantinople in 1863. "In August," he says, 
"the torrid heat drove me to seek for a while the cool breezes 
of the Bosphorus, and I then, for the first time, became 
acquainted with the wonders of Constantinople. Here I 
found at the Embassy Edward Herbert and got to know that 
remarkable, original, and most talented and kind-hearted 
of would-be cynics, Henry Labouchere. " ^ Later on, in the 
same volume of reminiscences, he gives another picture of 

^ Rumbold, Recollections of a Diplomatist, vol. ii. 



64 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1853- 

the young secretary, whose diplomatic career was, however, 
soon to come to a close. "The Pisani dynasty were still 
masters of the situation when I arrived. Under the, in 
many ways, imfortunate tenure of the Embassy by Sir 
Henry Bulwer, Alexander Pisani, best known as the 'Count,* 
who was simply the Keeper of the Archives, had been made 
head of the Diplomatic Chancellerie of the Embassy, to the 
intense disgust of successive secretaries properly belonging to 
the Service. Pisani, it was said, had extorted this abnormal 
appointment from his chief by threatening to resign and 
write his memoirs. Henry Labouchere, among others, 
greatly resented the arrangement. Some years before, he 
had a passage of arms with the 'Count,' who had reproved 
him, so to speak, officially for absenting himself for the day 
from the Chancery on some occasion, without applying to 
him for leave to do so. The ridiculous affair was referred 
to Sir Henry Bulwer, and gave my friend Labby a charming 
opportunity of describing the * Count ' in a formal letter to 
the Ambassador. 'It seems to me,' he wrote, 'a singular 
dispensation that places a Greek nobleman of Venetian 
extraction, who profited by the advantages of a Pera educa- 
tion, in authority over a body of English Gentlemen.' " 

Mr. Labouchere was always very amusing on the subject 
of his chief at Constantinople. He said that Lord Bailing 
could not understand the value of money. He was so 
generous that he was always in financial difficulties. At one 
time the Embassy was reduced to such straits that there was 
no money to buy any decent wine. The difficulty was met 
in the following manner : At official dinners the grand-look- 
ing mattre d'hotel would solemnly say before pouring out the 
wine, "Chateau Lafitte '48," or "La Rose '52," and so on, 
all through dinner. As a matter of fact, the wine had really 
come from the neighbouring Greek isles, and had been 
doctored with an infusion of prunes to tone down the flavour 
of tar, which is inseparable from these insular vintages. 
Lord Bailing himself was so anxious to please that he would 



i864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 65 

quaff glass after glass of the horrible beverage, swallowing 
numberless pills the while as an antidote. 

There are many versions of the incident with which 
Labouchere chose to conclude his relations with the Diplo- 
matic Service. The Foreign Office records of the date are 
not yet available, but I am indebted to Sir Audley Gosling 
for his recollections of the affair as it happened. In the 
summer of 1864, Labouchere found himself at Baden-Baden, 
enjoying the relaxation of a little gambling after his strenuous 
work in the service of his country. While there he received 
from Lord Russell, the Foreign Secretary, the usual stereo- 
typed announcement of his promotion in the Diplomatic 
Service. It ran: "I have to inform you that Her Majesty 
has, on my recommendation, been pleased to promote you 
to be a Second Secretary in the Diplomatic Service to reside 
at Buenos Ayres. " 

Labouchere is said to have replied as follows: "I have 
the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's 
despatch, informing me of my promotion as Second Secretary 
to Her Majesty's Legation at Buenos Ayres. I beg to state 
that, if residing at Baden-Baden I can fulfil those duties, I 
shall be pleased to accept the appointment. " As this was 
the second joke he had played on Lord Russell, he was 
politely told that there was no further use for his services. ^ 

A successful "system" is not an essential part of the 
educational equipment of a diplomat, but it may on occasion 
be a very useful extra to his other accomplishments. Mr 
Labouchere found it so. "I used at one time, " he said, " to 
take the waters every year at Homburg, and I invariably 
paid the expenses of my trip out of my winnings at the 
gambling-tables. It may have been luck, or it may have 
been system; but I give my system for what it is worth. I 

' The letter, signed by Lord Russell, appointing Henry Labouchere Second 
Secretary is dated February 3, 1863, so that the one, referred to by Sir Audley 
Gosling, appointing him to Buenos Ayres, must have been of later date. The 
latter is not in my possession. 
5 



66 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1853- 

used to write the following figures on a piece of paper: 3, 4, 
5, 6, 7. My stake was always the top and bottom figure 
added together. If I won, I scratched out these figures ; if I 
lost, I wrote down the stake at the bottom of the figures, and 
I went on playing until all the figures on my piece of paper 
were erased. Thus my first stake (and I played indifferently 
on red or black) would be ten. If I won it, I scratched out 
three and seven. My next stake would be ten again, as four 
and six make ten. If I lost it, I wrote down ten at the bottom 
of my list of figures, and played fourteen, being the addition 
of the first and last figure on the list, viz. fourteen. The 
basis of the ' system ' was this. Before reaching the maxi- 
mum, I could play a series of even chances for about two 
hours, and if during these two hours I won one quarter as 
many times as the bank, plus five, all my figures were 
erased. During these two hours an even chance would be 
produced two hundred times. If, therefore, I won fifty-five 
times, and the bank won one hundred and forty-five times, 
I was the winner of twenty-five napoleons, florins, or what- 
ever was my unit. Now let any one produce an even chance 
by tossing up a coin and always crying ' heads, ' he will find 
that he may go on until Doomsday before the ' tails ' exceed 
the 'heads,' or the 'heads' exceed the 'tails,' by ninety- 
five. I found this system in a letter from Condorcet to a 
friend, which I read in a book that I purchased at a stall on 
the 'Quai' at Paris. It may have been, as I have said, 
only luck; but all I can say is, that whenever I played it I 
invariably won. " 

One of Mr. Labouchere's oldest friends, Mrs. Crawford, 
recently wrote to me a letter in which she made the following 
lucid remarks about his career in the Diplomatic Service: 
"I was acquainted," she says, "with many of his diplomatic 
comrades, and they often spoke of him in chat with me. 
Some were friendly, some were not. He had a very un- 
guarded tongue, and discharged his shafts of satire, irony, 
humour in all directions, and every arrow that hit made an 



1864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 67 

enemy. I, mentally, used to take this into account in 
judging of their judgments, and the habit, which does not 
exist in England, of searching for mitigating circumstances 
helped me to make a fair and true estimate of his complex 
nature. I think he rather enjoyed, but passagerement, being 
thought a Richard III., an lago — an inveterate gambler. I 
soon came to the conclusion that this was partly due to a 
reaction against the idolatrous attitude of the English middle 
class and religious people towards Victoria and Albert, for 
it was shockingly fulsome — and the Queen early showed 
hostility towards him. His uncle, Lord Taunton, reflected 
her known sentiments, and so did Lord Clarendon. He was 
wrong, very wrong, to have treated the vile crime of Gren- 
ville Murray, and committed too in an Office capacity, as 
a thing of no consequence and the stumble made by an ex- 
ceedingly clever man — a too great rarity in the British 
Consular Service. I have some recollection that she was 
furious with the Prince of Wales, who had not the virtue, 
in his early years at any rate, of reticence in speaking, 
for, on the authority of Mr. Labouchere, taking Grenville 
Murray's part against the Foreign Office in her presence. 
This, however, was only one of the reasons of her fixed 
hostility. ..." 

The crime to which Mrs. Crawford refers as having been 
committed by Grenville Murray in an official capacity was 
that of forwarding private news to the Morning Post (to which 
paper he was secretly acting as correspondent) in the Foreign 
Office bag from Vienna, where he was an attache in 1852, 
under Lord Westmorland. Mr. Labouchere declared in 
Truth that Lord Palmerston, having a private grudge against 
Prince Schwarzenberg, the Prime Minister of Austria, and 
wishing for special information about him to reach the 
British public, had come to a private understanding with 
Grenville Murray that his journalistic correspondence would 
be winked at. Unfortunately the "copy" fell into the 
hands of Lord Westmorland, who demanded from Lord 



68 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1853- 

Palmerston the instant dismissal of Murray. Murray was 
not dismissed, but in a year's time was transferred to Con- 
stantinople, where Lord Stratford de Redcliffe reigned 
supreme. He had, of course, heard from Lord Westmorland 
about Murray's journalistic indiscretions, and hated him 
accordingly. Murray retorted by holding up his chief to 
every sort of ridicule to the English magazine-reading public ; 
for he was a clever writer, and contributed largely to House- 
hold Words, then under the editorship of Charles Dickens. 
The Foreign Office soon thought it necessary to remove him, 
and he was appointed to the consul-generalship of Odessa. 
At Odessa the consul was just as unpopular as the attache 
had been at Vienna and Constantinople. The defence of 
Grenville Murray, to which Mrs. Crawford refers, was 
probably founded upon facts contained in the following 
passage of an "Anecdotal Photograph" of Lord Derby, pub- 
lished by Mr. Labouchere in an early number of Truth: 

When Lord Derby was at the head of the Foreign Office, he 
left all the appointments in the Diplomatic Service to the per- 
manent officials, and, owing to this pococurantism, he did an 
act of injustice to one of the most brilliant litterateurs of the day. 
The gentleman in question had a consulship in the East. An able 
and brilliant man, he was naturally a persona in grata to the high 
priests of red tape, and between them and him there was per- 
petual war, which at length culminated in a determination to 
remove him per fas or per nefas from the service. Certain 
charges were accordingly brought against this gentleman, who 
was put on his defence. The accused, who was then in London, 
applied for copies of certain papers from the archives of the 
Foreign Office which he considered essential to his complete 
exculpation. The officials at first declined to grant them, but, 
after a long correspondence, admitted the justice of the claim. 
The papers were sent accordingly, together with two separate 
letters, both bearing the same date. One announced that the 
documents had been forwarded, the other that Lord Derby had 
made up his mind on the whole case, and his decision was in these 
words: "I have accordingly advised the Queen to cancel your 



1864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 69 

commission as , and it is hereby cancelled accordingly." 

The recipient of this interesting epistle was at first inclined to 
treat it as a bad joke, but soon found that it was an authentic 
fact." 

I have the great good fortune also to have received from 
Mr. Wilfrid Blunt a brief memoir of Mr. Labouchere, which 
commences in his early diplomatic days, and though it carries 
us on almost to the end of his life, I think that its publication 
here will enable those readers who did not know Mr. Labou- 
chere personally to get a sincere impression of the whole of his 
career, which cannot fail to be of assistance to them in 
elucidating his curious original personality from the maze of 
dates and details which are the inevitable appendages of a 
comprehensive biography. Mr. Blunt writes as follows: 

Feb. 13, 1913. 

My acquaintance with Henry Labouchere dates, if I re- 
member rightly, from the early spring of 1861. We were 
both then in the Diplomatic Service, and though not actually 
employed together, I had just succeeded him as unpaid at- 
tache at the Frankfort Legation, and found him still lingering 
there when I came to take up my not very onerous duties 
that year under our chief, Sir Alexander Malet, Edward Malet's 
father. Labouchere's attraction to Frankfort was not Frank- 
fort itself, but its close neighbourhood to Hombourg, where the 
gambling-tables still flourished, and where he spent nearly all 
his time. By rights he ought to have been at St. Petersburg, 
but pretended that he could not afford to travel to his new post 
except on foot, and so was staying on waiting to have his expenses 
paid by Government. His life at that time was an avowedly 
disreputable one, the society of Hombourg being what it was; 
and he was looked upon by the more strait-laced ladies of the 
Corps Diplomatique as something of a pariah. There was a 
good deal of talk about him, opinions being divided as to whether 
he was more knave or fool, greenhorn or knowing fellow, all 
which amused him greatly. He was in reality the good-hearted 

' Truth, Nov. 20, 1879. 



70 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1853- 

cynic the world has since acknowledged him to be, with a keen 
appreciation of the comedie humaine, a contempt for aristocratic 
shams, and a philosopher's taste for low society. 

I have a coloured caricature I made of him of that date, 1861, 
in which he is represented as undergoing a conversion to re- 
spectability at the hands of Countess d'Usedom, the Olympia of 
the Bismarck memoirs, and wife of the Prussian Ambassador, 
with her two Scotch nieces in the preposterous crinoline dresses 
of the time. He figures in it as a round-faced young man with 
highly coloured cheeks, and an air of mock modesty which is very 
characteristic. It is labelled "The Deformed Transformed." 

Later, I used to see him pretty frequently in London at the 
St. James' Club, of which we were both members. He was 
already beginning to be a recognised wit, and a central figure 
among talkers in the smoking-room- But I remember old 
Paddy Green of Evans' still maintaining that he was for all that 
a simple-minded fellow, made to be the prey of rogues. It was 
as such that he had known him some years before when Labou- 
chere first appeared in London life and took up his quarters 
at Evans' Hotel in Covent Garden. The good Irishman had 
dolorous stories of the way in which his protege had then been 
fleeced. "Poor Labouchere, poor Labouchere," he used to say, 
in his paternally emotional voice; "a good young man, but 
always his own worst enemy." His own worst enemy he cer- 
tainly often was. I remember his coming into the Club one 
evening, it must have been in 1865, when he had just been elected 
M.P. for Windsor, and boasting to all of us who would listen to 
him, with every detail, how he had bribed the free and intelligent 
electors of the Royal Borough, an imprudence which caused him 
the misfortune of his being unseated immediately afterwards on 
petition. 

Of the years that followed, when he was making his name as 
a journalist, and his fortune on the Stock Exchange, I have 
nothing particular to record. I came once more into close con- 
nection with him in 1882, at the time of the trial of Arabi at 
Cairo after Tel-el-Kebir. Labouchere, during the early months 
of the year, had been among those Radicals who in the House of 
Commons had followed Chamberlain and Dilke in pressing 
intervention in Egypt on the Foreign Office, and he made no 



1864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 71 

secret of the reason-— he was a holder of Egyptian Bonds. The 
bombardment of Alexandria and the massacre of Tel-el-Kebir, 
with the revelations which followed of the intrigues which had 
caused the war, proved, however, too much for his political con- 
science, which was really sound, and having unloaded his Egyp- 
tian stock, which had gone up to higher prices (for he was not a 
man to neglect a Stock Exchange opportunity), he frankly re- 
pented of his sin, and from that time onwards did his best to repair 
the wrong to Egypt he had joined in doing. He subscribed hand- 
somely to the "Arabi Defence Fund," was always ready to ask 
questions in the House, and did not scruple to reproach the Grand 
Old Man with his lapses at Cairo and in the Soudan from his 
Midlothian principles. In this connection I saw much of him 
from 1883 to 1885, years during which Egypt occupied so large 
a share of public attention, and always found him interested in 
the Egyptian cause and helpful. 

He was living then in Queen Anne's Gate, and I >vas pretty 
sure to find him in the morning, and often stayed to lunch with 
him and his wife. He was uniformly gay and pleasant and ready 
to give news. No one ever was more generous in sharing his 
political knowledge with his friends, and I could count on him to 
tell me the true and exact truth of what was going on in the 
directions that interested me, without regard to the rules of 
secrecy so many public men affect. Of his wit too he was copi- 
ously lavish, as only those are who have it in supreme abundance, 
giving of his very best to a single listener as freely as to a larger 
audience. This, I always think, is the test of genius in the 
department of brilliant talking, and no one ever shone there more 
conspicuously than he did. His worldly wisdom was wonderful. 
Nor was it confined to things at home, the House of Commons, 
and the intrigue of Downing Street. He was really the only 
English Radical, with Dilke, who had an accurate acquaintance 
with affairs abroad, and he had his Europe at his finger-ends. 
He would have made an admirable ambassador, where any diffi- 
cult matters had to be carried through, and he ought certainly 
to have been given the Embassy he so much desired at Washing- 
ton. It was always his ambition, even stronger I think than 
that of holding Cabinet Office, to go back to his old diplomatic 
profession and give serious proof of his capacity in a service 



72 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1853- 

where, as a young man, he had played the fool. The Foreign 
Office would have found itself the stronger for his help. 

Our sympathy, which had begun about Egypt, was carried on, 
I am glad to remember, during the years of stress which followed, 
also to Ireland ; and from first to last my experience of his political 
action has been that of a man courageously consistent in his love 
of liberty, his hatred of tyranny, and his contempt of the insin- 
cerities of public life. He was never taken in by the false argu- 
ments with which politicians conceal their treacheries, and he 
was never himself a betrayer. If my testimony can be of any 
service to his memory as an honest man, I freely give it. 

The last time I saw him was in the sxmimer of 1902, when he 
came down with his wife and daughter to spend a week-end, 
July I2th to 14th, with me and my wife in Sussex. He had 
resolved to pass the rest of his days at Florence, and it was a 
farewell visit that he paid us. He had just bought Michael 
Angelo's Villa, and talked much about it and his design, phili- 
stine that he was, of turning it inside out, fitting it with electric 
light, and otherwise bedevilling it with modern improvements, 
uprooting the old trees in the podere and planting new ones. 
On matters of this sort he was a terrible barbarian, and took 
delight in playing the vandal with places and things which the 
rest of the world held in reverence. " Old Michael," he explained, 
"knew nothing about the comforts of a modern establishment, 
and it was time that he should learn them." Apart from this 
little mechancete, he proved himself a most delectable companion, 
giving us a true feast of wit and wisdom the whole Sunday 
through. Sibyl, Lady Queensberry , was of our party, and Colonel 
Bill Gordon, General Gordon's nephew, with whom he had much 
talk about Khartoum and Egypt. Gordon was a good talker 
on his own subjects, and they got on well together, sitting up till 
half-past one the first night, telling story after story. Among 
them, I remember, Labouchere gave us accounts of his adventures 
in Mexico, and also of a ride he had taken from Damascus to 
Palmyra with Lady EUenborough and her Bedouin husband, 
Sheykh Mijwel el Mizrab, with reminiscences of the early days 
we had spent together in the Diplomatic Service, his gambling 
acquaintances at Hombourg, and his duel in Sweden. He was 
especially interested in this visit to the Weald of Sussex, and in 



1864] TRAVELS AND DIPLOMACY 73 

his having passed in the train almost within sight of Broome 
Hall, under Leith Hill, where he had Hved as a boy. He had not 
been that way since, he said. The second evening he was less 
brilliant, as Hilaire Belloc had joined our party, a rival talker 
to whom he left the monopoly of our entertainment. But it 
was an altogether pleasant two days that we passed together. 
I am glad to have the recollection of them. Alas, they were the 
last we were to see of him, for he left England soon afterwards, 
and we never met again. 



CHAPTER IV 
PARLIAMENTARY AMBITIONS 

(1866-1869) 

BEING asked on some occasion, "Why do men enter 
Parliament?" Mr. Labouchere replied: "Some of 
them enter Parliament because they have been local Bulls of 
Bashan, and consider that in the localities where they have 
roared, and pawed the groimd, they will be even more im- 
portant than heretofore ; some because they want to be peers, 
baronets, and knights ; some because they have a fad to air ; 
some because they want to have a try at climbing the greasy 
pole of office ; some because they have heard that the House 
of Commons is the best club in London; some because they 
delude themselves that they are orators; some for want of 
anything better to do ; some because they want to make a bit 
out of company promoting; and some because they have a 
vague notion that they are going to benefit their country 
by their devotion to legislative business. " He frankly con- 
fessed, however, that none of the above considerations had 
influenced him in his own decision to enter upon a parlia- 
mentary life. Curiosity had been his inducement in the 
first place, and secondly, a conviction that the House would 
benefit considerably from contact with so soimd a Radical as 
himself. 

In the autumn of the year that he left the Diplomatic 
Service, it was suggested to Mr. Labouchere by several 

74 



[1866-1869] PARLIAMENTARY AMBITIONS 75 

friends that he should come forward as a candidate in the 
next General Election for the borough of New Windsor. 
There was already another Liberal in the field — Mr. Flower 
of Stratford-on-Avon. Labouchere decided to confer with 
him on the subject. They met, accordingly, at the Reform 
Club, Labouchere having been previously warned by the 
Town Clerk of Windsor, Mr. Darvill, to act quite independ- 
ently of Flower, as he was in the hands of agents, in whom 
the leading men of the place had little confidence. Mr. 
Labouchere describes in his own words the upshot of the 
interview: "We met at the Reform Club, in the presence of 
Mr. Grant (one of Flower's agents) and Mr. Darvill, junior. 
As, however, both of us evidently thought that only one 
Liberal could be returned at Windsor, and as each of us 
intended to be that Liberal, we separated without coming to 
any arrangement to act together."^ 

Labouchere then went abroad, returning to England in 
January for a fortnight, during which time he gave a dinner 
at Windsor, held a public meeting, and identified himself as 
much as it was possible to do, in so short a time, with the 
local interests of the borough. In May, 1865, Mr. Flower 
retired from the candidature, because he felt that his agents, 
Grant and Dunn, had compromised him by corrupt prac- 
tices. As these gentlemen had hired as many as twenty 
public houses for committee rooms, a number ludicrously out 
of proportion to the size of the constituency, he acted wisely 
in doing so. He informed Labouchere of his decision. Mr. 
Darvill also wrote, recommending Labouchere to return to 
England, and if he really intended to stand for Windsor, to 
take some steps for insuring his return by appointing agents, 
and taking the usual preliminary precautions. 

To continue the narrative in Mr. Labouchere's own 
words: " Sir Henry Hoare, a day or two after my return to 
England, called upon me to tell me that he had been in 
communication with Mr. Darvill, and that as Mr. Darvill 

' Times, April 27, i866. 



76 HENRY LABOUCHERE [x866- 

had told me he thought that, if two Liberal candidates acted 
firmly together, both might be returned, he came to propose 
to me to make common cause with him. The next day we 
called together on Mr. Durrant, a London solicitor, who had 
acted for Sir Henry Hoare, and we begged him to go down to 
Windsor, and after seeing the principal Liberals, to report to 
us the state of affairs. This he did. He told us Mr. Flower 
had engaged twenty committee rooms — a number which was 
clearly too great, and he recommended us to take on nine of 
them. We sent him down to Windsor again to arrange 
about the committee rooms and about taking on agents, and 
he, in conjunction with Mr. Last, retained the usual Liberal 
agents, who were the same as had been engaged by Mr. 
Flower. It was distinctly understood at the same time, that 
we only took on nine committee rooms. Mr. Flower, after, 
I believe, a long correspondence with Mr. Cleave, agreed 
to pay for the eleven committee rooms which he had engaged. 
Sir Henry Hoare and I were both returned as members for 
Windsor." 

It was an unfortunate action, however, on the part of the 
two Liberal candidates to make use of the same agents who 
had compromised Mr. Flower, and it cost them their seats. 
The election took place in November, 1865, and the result of 
the poll was as follows : 

Sir Henry Hoare .... 324 votes 

■ Mr. Labouchere .... 323 

Mr. Vansittart (Cons.) . . .291 " 

Col. Vyse (Cons.) . . . .261 " 

On April 26, 1866, the chairman of a select committee,' 
appointed to try the merits of the petition against the retiu-n 

' The committee was composed as follows: Mr. John Tomlinson Hibbert 
(Chairman), Mr. Robert Dalglish, Mr. Arthur Wellesley Peel, Hon. Fredk. 
Stanley, and Major Waterhouse. It sat for six days. The counsel for the 
petitioners were: Mr. W. H. Cooke, Q.C., Mr. Matthews, and Mr. Campbell 
Bruce. For the defendants: Mr. Serjeant Ballantine and Mr. Biron. 



i869] PARI.IAMENTARY AMBITIONS 77 

of Sir Henry Hoare and Mr. Labouchere for the borough of 
New Windsor, on the grounds that it was obtained by means 
of bribery, treating, and undue influence, announced that the 
committee had arrived at the following determination : 

"That Sir Henry Ainslie Hoare is not duly elected a 
burgess to serve in the present parliament for the borough of 
'New Windsor. That Henry Labouchere, Esq., is not duly 
elected to serve in the present parliament for the borough of 
New Windsor. That Sir Henry Ainslie Hoare is, by his 
agents, guilty of bribery. That it has been proved that 
various acts of bribery have been committed by the agents of 
the sitting members by the engagement of an excessive 
number of public houses in which it was proved that none of 
the legitimate business of the election was transacted, and 
for which sums varying from £10 to £20 were paid. That 
it has not been proved that such acts were committed with 
the knowledge or consent of the said Sir Henry Hoare and 
the said Henry Labouchere, Esq. That the committee have 
no reason to believe that bribery and corruption exten- 
sively prevailed at the last election for the borough of New 
Windsor. " 

The committee had sat for six days before the above 
decision was arrived at, and many were the entertaining 
encotmters between the defendants' counsel, the great Mr. 
Serjeant Ballantine, and the witnesses for the petitioners. 
One of the latter explained that he had voted for the Con- 
servatives because Mr. Vansittart was a "very nice old man." 
Under cross-examination it was elicited with difficulty that 
Mr. Vansittart had not given his wife and daughter each 
a new dress. Being further pressed, he annoimced that 
he could prove it. "How?" questioned the counsel. "I 
haven't got no wife nor no daughter," complained the 
witness. A charge of presenting a silk gown to the wife of 
one of the electors was preferred against Henry Labouchere. 
He did not deny having done so. "The lady in question, " 
he explained, "was extremely good-looking, and I have 



78 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1866- 

frequently noticed that a present of finery is a simple way to 
win the female heart. I regret that, in the particular case, 
I was unsuccessful, but, good God, you do not insinuate for a 
moment, do you, that I intended her husband to know any- 
thing about the affair?" 

The line of defence taken up by Labouchere will easily be 
seen by reading the letter he sent to the Times the day after 
the committee had reached their decision. I give it in full, 
with the exception of some sentences that have already been 

quoted : 

Albany, April 26. 

Sir, — In an article to-day on the recent decision of the 
Election Committees, you allude to the case of Windsor. 

As your observations tend to lead those who read them to 
form the conclusion that my late constituents are somewhat 
corrupt, in justice to them, I should feel obliged to you to allow 
me to say a few words in their defence. It may be useful to 
future candidates to know on what grounds Sir Henry Hoare 
and I have been unseated. . . . 

We were petitioned against on the usual charges of bribery 
and intimidation. To the charges of direct bribery and indirectly 
bribing by the promise of work we replied, I believe, to the satis- 
faction of the Committee. The case of the petitioners rested 
upon the charge that we had engaged too many committee rooms. 

The Committee unseated us because: "It had been proved 
that acts of bribery had been committed by the engagement, by 
the agents of the sitting members, of an excessive number of 
public houses, in which it was proved that none of the legitimate 
business of the election was transacted, and for which sums 
varying from £10 to £20 were paid. That it has not been proved 
that such acts were committed with the knowledge or consent 
of the said Sir Henry Hoare and the said Henry Labouchere." 

Now this decision must have been come to on the supposi- 
tion that Sir Henry Hoare and I were responsible for the eleven 
committee rooms, paid for by Mr. Flower, because we both swore 
that the nine committee rooms were taken with "knowledge and 
consent." The Committee consequently must have concluded 
either that Mr. Flower, Mr. Durrant, Sir H. Hoare, and myself 



1869] PARLIAMENTARY AMBITIONS 79 

were guilty of perjury in swearing that the payment by Mr. 
Flower was bona fide, or that Sir H. Hoare and I, in taking on 
agents in May, became responsible for what these agents had 
done in the interests of a third party during the winter. 

Our case rested on the fact that "none of the legitimate 
business of the election" was transacted in Mr. Flower's public 
houses, and that if a bill with the words "Committee Rooms " was 
hung over any room in Mr. Flower's public houses it was because 
the publicans considered they would advertise their own political 
principles by showing that they had been engaged by a Liberal 
candidate who had retired. Every one knows that, if an elec- 
tioneering bill over a public house is an advertisement for a 
candidate, it is also an advertisement for the public house, and 
that publicans like it to be supposed that they belong to one or 
other of the parties during a contested election. As a matter 
of fact some of Mr. Flower's publicans did not vote for me. 

I may then fairly state that my late colleague and I were 
unseated because one of our agents had been concerned, months 
before he became our agent, in taking public houses in undue 
numbers for Mr. Flower. 

Now, sir, I would venture to call the attention of the Legis- 
lature to the new and strange principle of jurisprudence on which 
the decision of the Windsor Election Committee has been based. 
I do so in the interests of all candidates, for, as far as I am con- 
cerned, I have unfortunately no appeal against the decision. 

It is sufficiently difficult to prevent over zealous committee 
men and agents from compromising their candidate during the 
election; but, if he is to be retrospectively responsible for all 
their previous acts, I venture to say that no candidate can expect 
to hold his seat against a petition. Were the retrospective 
responsibility introduced into the procedure of courts of law no 
man would be safe. I might, sir, to-morrow have the advantage 
of making your acquaintance. Some days later I might take a 
servant whom you had formerly employed. Ought I to be hung 
if it were subsequently shown that you and the servant had 
murdered some one last January in London, while I was in 
Italy? 

Were I still a member of the Legislature, I should myself 
point out the necessity of a reform in the composition of election 



8o HENRY LABOUCHEKE [1866- 

committees. As an elector of Westminster, I shall, through my 
representative, Capt. Grosvenor, present a petition to the House 
of Commons praying that some alteration be made in the present 
system, and that a properly qualified judge be added to every 
committee to explain the elementary principles of jurisprudence 
to well-intentioned gentlemen who know nothing about them.^ 
— I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, 

H. Labouchere. 

A number of extremely interesting letters appeared in the 
Times, on the subject of the New Windsor Election Petition, 
one other, only, of which I shall quote, as it puts the case for 
Mr. Labouchere and his colleagues in a perfectly clear light. 
It runs as follows : 

Sir, — My name having prominently appeared in the pro- 
ceeding before the Election Committee in this case, and in com- 
munications made to you by Sir Henry Hoare and Mr. Labou- 
chere, complaining of the decision of the committee, I trust you 
will not refuse me an opportunity of corroborating their state- 
ments. I may say, as a prelude, that the agents had the most 
distinct directions to do nothing in contradiction of the statutes 
relating to the election of members to serve in Parliament, and 
I proved, in evidence, my written instructions to that effect. 

Sir Henry Hoare and Mr. Labouchere, being aware that 
Mr. Flower had retired by reason of his belief that he had been 
compromised by his agents, were most anxious to avoid becoming 
in any way identified with their proceedings ; and, as regards the 
public houses, which had been taken on his behalf, the late 
members entirely repudiated, both personally, and through me, 
having anything whatever to do with them. 

No one had authority to hire committee rooms but Mr. 
Last, the head agent at Windsor, and no complaint is made in 
the Committee's Report in respect of the nine houses engaged 
by him. Not a shilling has, to my knowledge or beHef, been 
paid, or promised on account, of what I may, for brevity, call 
" Mr. Flower's public houses" ; so that, in fact, these houses were 

^ Times, April 27, 1866. 



i869] PARLIAMENTARY AMBITIONS 8i 

neither hired by, paid for, nor used by the late members or their 
agents. 

The unseating, therefore, of the late members for New 
Windsor upon the grounds stated in the Report of the Committee 
is, I venture to suggest, unprecedented in the annals of election 
petitions, and affords just ground for complaint, and for giving, 
in future cases some appeal, where there may be a similar mis- 
carriage of justice.^ — I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, 

G. J. DURRANT. 

Henry Labouchere made his maiden speech during the six 
months that he was member for New Windsor. It was upon 
an uninteresting and complicated subject — ^namely, the in- 
adequacy of our Neutrality Law to enable us to fulfil our 
international obligations towards foreign countries. The 
debate, begun in February, continued well into the March of 
1866. Labouchere made his speech on the 22nd of February. 
During the course of it he said that, having passed ten years 
in the Diplomatic Service, he had given some consideration to 
the subject of International Law, which had led him to 
believe that, from defects and inefficiency, our Neutrality 
Law was fraught not only with future danger to ourselves, 
but was calculated to prevent us from acting justly towards 
our Allies. He quoted, in support of his argument, the rela- 
tions of England with the United States of America, the 
sympathy of America with Fenianism, and our loss of 
commerce with America. ^ On March 7 he voted in favour 
of the Church Rates Abolition Bill, which was read for the 
second time on that day and committed. 

Of course he was very funny on the subject of the election 
at New Windsor. He was fond of relating how it was that he 
first became an M.P. "I had to kiss the babies," he said, 
"pay compliments to their mothers, and explain the beauties 
of Liberalism to their fathers, who never could be got to say 
how they would vote. On the day of the election everything 

' Times, April 27, i866. ' Hansard, vol. 181, s. 3. 

6 



82 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1866- 

turned upon half a dozen votes. I remember one Tory went 
out to fish in a punt, and the boatman who accompanied 
him was induced to keep him well out in the middle of the 
river, until the polling hoiu- had passed. Another aged and 
decrepid Tory was kept in the house by having cabs run at 
him whenever he tried to issue from his door. Finally the 
Liberals won the day. On this the Tories petitioned. The 
committee decided that there had been no bribery, but 
unseated my colleague and myself because they thought that 
we had hired an excessive number of committee rooms. " 

And again: " One man at this election amused me. He 
hung about outside my committee room, and whenever he 
saw me he wrung my hand. On my first interview with this 
patriot, he informed me that, at an early hour of the morning, 
he had personated Dr. Gumming, and had voted for me as 
that divine. Each time I saw him diuing the day, he said 
that he had been personating some one, and always a clergy- 
man. I remonstrated with him but uselessly. " 

The playwright, Herman Merivale, tells an anecdote 
about Henry Labouchere, in connection with the Windsor 
election, which it is very probable he heard from the whilom 
member himself. " Lord Taunton, " writes Merivale, " uncle 
and precursor of our more famous Labby, is fabled to have 
lived in a general state of alarm at the strange proclivities of 
that unchastened heir, who has furnished the world with 
more amusing stories of a curious humour than any public 
man of his time. It is said that when Lord Taunton heard 
that his nephew contemplated public life, and proposed to 
stand for one of the coimty divisions in the district, he was 
much pleased at such a sign of grace, and asked if he could 
do anything for him. 'Really I think not,' replied the 
younger Henry, 'but I don't know. If you would put on 
your peer's robes, and walk arm-in-arm with me down the 
High Street of Windsor, it might have a good effect. " ^ 

Another opportunity soon occurred for Labouchere to re- 

* Herman Merivale, Bar, Stage, and Platform. 



1869] PARLIAMENTARY AMBITIONS 83 

enter the House of Commons. On the death of Mr. Robert 
Hanbury, one of the members for Middlesex, he presented 
himself to the electors, and was returned without opposition, 
on April 1 6, 1 867. An extract from his address to the electors, 
dated March 29', is not without interest, as in it he imblush- 
ingly gives expression to the democratic principles to which 
he remained so faithful throughout his career. "Should 
you do me the honour, " he said, "to return me to Parliament, 
it would be my first duty to co-operate with those who desire 
to effect the passage of an honest and straightforward 
measure of reform — such a measure as would prove to the 
large body of artisans and working men, whom I hold to be 
entitled to the franchise, that the House of Commons is not 
afraid of the people, nor averse to the free extension of politi- 
cal privileges, nor disposed to deny to the intelligent opera- 
tives a share in the government of the country to whose 
burdens they are called upon to contribute. If the Reform 
Bill proposed by the Tory Ministry is not capable of adapta- 
tion to such an end, I should not hesitate to give my ad- 
herence to any cause which may seem the most calculated 
to attain the desired object."^ 

While he was member for Middlesex, Labouchere was 
assiduous in his parliamentary duties. He spoke frequently 
and to the point, on such subjects as the "Expenses of 
Voters,"^ on "the Sale of Liquor on Sundays Bill''^ (a 
characteristically amusing speech) , on * 'Licences ' ' (Brewers') , '» 
on the "Military Knights of Windsor attending Church, "s 
on "Appeals in the House of Lords. "^ He objected to a 
vote to complete the sum of £2135 for building new Embassy 
houses in Madrid and Paris, ^ and offered some practical 
suggestions as to the building (or buying) of new Embassy 
buildings at Therapia.^ 

' Times, April 2, 1867. • Times, July 5, 1867. 

3 Times, March 19, i868. < Times, March 25, 1868. 

s Times, June 24, 1868. * Times, May 29, 1868. 

V Times, May i, 1868. 8 Times, April 21, 1868. 



84 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1866- 

In short, he was an active and useful member. The 
speeches which have been most frequently quoted are the 
ones which he made on Ma}'- 14, protesting against a vote 
of £137,524, for the upkeep of the Royal Parks and Pleasure 
Grounds, ^ and his two speeches on the Public Schools Bill. ^ 
In the former he asserted that it was unjust and quite illogical 
to prohibit the entrance of cabs into Hyde Park. Most of 
his friends, he announced, were not in a position to keep 
their own carriages, yet they passionately longed to drive 
about in the haimts of fashion. He himself suffered cruelly 
under the same longing and disability, and such an exclusion, 
he explained, was quite incompatible with the spirit of 
Liberalism. He referred to the regulations concerning the 
public parks of Vienna and Paris to show that the prejudice 
against hired vehicles was entirely British and snobbish. 

On another occasion, Mr. Lowe had moved a clause to the 
effect that boys educated at public schools should be ex- 
amined once a year, by an Inspector of Education, in simple 
reading, writing, and arithmetic, and that a report as to their 
attainments should be laid before Parliament. 

On this Labouchere made an excellent speech. In the 
course of it, he said that he hoped Mr. Lowe's clause would 
be pressed to a division, because it was evident that most 
pupils at public schools did not know as much as an average 
charity boy. Complaint had been made that the whole time 
of public school boys was taken up by the study of Latin and 
Greek, but, as a matter of fact, they learned very little of these 
languages. An ordinarily educated German could converse 
with a foreigner in Latin, if the two had no other language in 
common, but how many Englishmen carried from a public 
school sufficient Latin to do this? He confessed that he 
himself, although he might be able to translate some half a 
dozen words of Latin, was wholly imable to translate a 
sentence of Greek, although he had studied those languages 
for years at a public school. He complained that this 

^ Times, May 15, 1868. * Times, June 17 and 24, 1868. 



1869] PARLIAMENTARY AMBITIONS 85 

ignorance was the fault of a system, and the misfortune of 
those who were obHged to undergo it. 

Mr. Labouchere used to relate the following reminis- 
cence of the days when he was member for Middlesex: "It 
is a curious fact — such is the irony of fate — that these dues 
(the Middlesex Coal Dues) were once prolonged owing to me. 
About twenty years ago, I was member for Middlesex. A 
Bill was brought forward to prolong the dues in order to 
borrow the money for certain Metropolitan improvements. 
Now the dues are collected from the inhabitants, not only of 
the metropolis, but of all Middlesex. My constituents 
wanted the bridges over the Thames and the Lea, beyond the 
Metropolitan area, to be freed. So I persistently opposed the 
Bill by much talking, by amendments, and other such 
devices (for although blocking had not been invented, ob- 
struction was even then not without its resources). This 
led to negotiation, and it was finally agreed that the 
prolongation should be for a still longer period than was 
proposed by the Bill, in order that money should also be 
borrowed to free the bridges."^ 

Lord Derby's administration, under which Labouchere 
had become one of the Liberal members for Middlesex, was 
succeeded by the first administration of Mr. Disraeli. In 
December, 1868, the General Election took place, by which 
Mr. Gladstone, in his turn, was put, for the first time, at the 
head of Queen Victoria's Government. Mr. Labouchere 
presented himself for re-election at Middlesex in November. 
It was at first thought that both the sitting members, himself 
and Lord Enfield, would have a quiet "walk-over." The 
Conservatives, however, were determined to put forward at 
least one candidate, and they selected Lord George Hamilton, 
the third son of the Duke of Abercom. 

On November 2, both Henry Labouchere and Lord 
Enfield issued their addresses. Lord Enfield appealing to his 
electors on grounds no more vital than that he had repre- 

' Truth, November 25, 1886. 



86 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1866- 

sented Middlesex in Parliament for the last eleven years, and 
Mr. Labouchere because he frankly avowed himself in 
favour of the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in 
Ireland as being likely to strengthen the establishment of the 
Church of England in the sister isle, and, to quote verbatim 
from his speech: "I shall," he said, "oppose the proposal 
which was made last year by the Government of Mr. Dis- 
raeli to endow a Roman Catholic university. While I 
respect the sincere convictions of my Roman Catholic 
countrymen and desire that their religious convictions should 
not subject them either to civil or political disqualification, 
I do not think that their Church or their educational es- 
tablishments should have any portion of the revenues now 
enjoyed by the established Church." He went on to say: 
"Since a Conservative Government has been in power the 
public departments have vied with each other in extrava- 
gance. The efforts of private members in which I have 
joined have proved ineffectual to check the waste. The 
sooner Mr. Gladstone is in office the better for the taxpayer."^ 

The two Liberal candidates made public speeches to their 
electors on the same day that they issued their addresses. 
Labouchere made his in the British Schools at Brentford, and 
the points on which he argued were the disestablishment of 
the Irish Church and the waste of public money. The 
selection of Lord George Hamilton as the Conservative 
candidate gave him an opportunity of making some extremely 
annoying remarks. He referred to him as "a young gentle- 
man who had lately joined the army — an unfledged ensign 
who was getting on with the goose step and preparing himself 
for the onerous duties connected with the Horse Guards," 
and other taunting remarks of a similar nature. 

The embryo M.P., on November 9, stimg to madness 
by Labouchere's witticisms, boldly announced himself as his 
opponent in particular. He hotly denied that his father had 
received annually for many years a large sum of money from 

* Times, November 3, 1868. 



1869] PARLIAMENTARY AMBITIONS 87 

the State and then had been made a duke for his kindness in 
having accepted it. The Conservative meeting at which the 
young guardsman spoke would have been a decided poHtical 
success had it not been for the zeal of the gentleman who 
seconded the vote of confidence. He remarked that, ever 
since the day when King John had signed the Magna Charta, 
the people of this country had been indebted to the aris- 
tocracy for all the liberties enjoyed in the Empire. Storms of 
groans and hisses met his well-meant remark, and though 
the vote of confidence was passed, the show of hands was 
manifestly against it.^ 

But the real interest of the election was centred in the 
personal quarrel between the Liberal candidates, which re- 
sulted in a Tory being returned for Middlesex. They 
appeared each to be possessed with an ungovernable hatred 
for the other, which was extremely prejudicial to their cause. 
The occasion of their public rupture was a dispute over the 
selection of electioneering agents, and by November 12 the 
attitude of the belligerents had become so extremely abusive 
that an important conference of Liberals from all parts of 
Middlesex had to be convened to consider the disunited state 
of their interest, more especially as it related to the relative 
bearing of the candidates towards each other. 

Whereupon Labouchere and Enfield each addressed a 
public meeting and gave their separate versions of the 
quarrel. The delight of the Tories was excessive, and they 
did all they could to foment the affair. The Times rose to 
unaccustomed heights of irony in a leading article occasioned 
by the following not exactly conciliatory letter addressed by 
Labouchere to its editor: 

Sir, — In the interests of the party Lord Enfield and I would 
do well to adjourn the discussion of all personal differences until 
after the Election. Lord Enfield had distinctly refused to unite 
before those differences arose; our discussion therefore has 
nothing to do with our political disunion. 

* Times, November lo, 1868. 



88 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1866- 

The constituency wish our union, I wish it too — -but per- 
sonal relations need not be renewed. Lord Enfield considers 
himself and Lord George Hamilton to be what he is pleased to 
call "scions of a noble stock." I am a man of the middle class. 
He considers himself my superior. Let us agree to differ on this 
point. — Yours truly, 

Henry Labouchere. 

"It is fortunate," remarked the Times, " that the Liberal 
majority bids fair to be a large one, for otherwise the future 
historians of Great Britain might have a somewhat un- 
dignified episode to narrate in the electioneering contest of 
1868, between the two great parties of the State. If the 
Liberals and the Conservatives happened to be running 
each other so closely that one seat more or less might deter- 
mine the policy of the new Parliament, the Middlesex 
election would probably have an odd part to play in British 
annals. Every reader of Liberal imagination can easily 
conjure up for himself a picture of the calamities that might, 
under evil stars, overtake this country if the Liberals found 
themselves not strong enough to carry out their present 
programme, and the Irish Church were left still standing, 
with Ireland, as the natural result of so much anxious and 
fruitless agitation, more discontented than ever. Let him 
then suppose that all these imagined misfortunes had to be 
borne in consequence of his party having lost a seat for 
Middlesex, because Lord Enfield objects 'on personal 
grounds' to Mr. Labouchere! Lord Chesterfield has told us 
that great events are really due to much smaller causes than 
historians, with a duly jealous regard for the dignity of their 
profession, dare admit. The Liberal majority in the next 
Parliament might, if it so happened, be lost and the pro- 
gramme of national policy at a critical moment reversed 
because Mr. Labouchere has called Lord Enfield ' a sneak, ' 
and Lord Enfield objects to Mr. Labouchere's want of blue 
blood! We doubt whether Gibbon himself could give the 
proper professional air of historical dignity to such an episode 



i869] PARLIAMENTARY AMBITIONS 89 

in the decline and fall of Great Britain as this. According 
to the first report of this squabble we read, Lord Enfield 
distinctly refused to meet Mr. Labouchere, while Mr. 
Labouchere, after showing that he had hitherto all along 
conducted himself as a very model of meekness, bearing 
endless snubs and rebuffs from his haughty adversary for the 
public good, suddenly turned round and insisted that he 
would 'fight single-handed' without any reference to his 
brother Liberal. It appears that, if the Liberals work 
properly, the Conservative candidate, despite all the ad- 
vantages of high birth and impetuous youth, ought to be 
beaten, but that otherwise he has a chance of success. It 
would be too bad if a Liberal seat were thus endangered, 
and we trust Lord Enfield will accept Mr. Labouchere' s 
compromise, and console himself by reflecting that he can 
still object as strenuously as ever to his plebeian adversary 
in private."^ 

Lord Enfield protested angrily in the next day's Times 
against the accusation of having referred to himself as a 
"scion of a noble house," and, oddly enough, his letter ap- 
peared just below one sent to the paper by the Committee 
of the Reform Club : 

The Reform Club, Monday Evening. 
The Committee of the Reform Club having, in consequence 
of the suggestions which have been made to them, taken into 
consideration the differences between Lord Enfield and myself, 
and having expressed an opinion that it is due to Lord Enfield 
that I should withdraw certain offensive expressions which I used 
concerning him, and that I should now express my regret for 
having used them, and, as I am now informed by the Committee 
that they have ascertained from Lord Enfield that he had no 
intention of doubting my word, as I imagined he did, on the 
occasion I referred to, I have no hesitation in at once acting on 
the advice of the Committee. 

H. Labouchere. 

^ Times, November 14, 1868. 



90 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1866- 

A patch was thus temporarily placed over the breach, for 
the benefit of the public, but the electors of Middlesex had no 
delusions on the subject. 

The meeting for the nomination of candidates at Brent- 
ford was a rowdy affair, the proceedings being of a most 
disorderly nature. The re-election of Lord Enfield was 
proposed and the proposition was received with groans and 
hisses. Then Labouchere's re-election was proposed. At 
that point the disorder became uncontrollable. The inter- 
ruption had commenced with the appearance of a band of 
roughs, wearing the Conservative card in their hats, who 
began to hoot and groan at the Liberal speakers. After this 
had gone on for a few minutes, another band, not quite so 
numerous, but of the same low class, poured into the square, 
bearing the Liberal cards on their hats. The two rival 
factions severally hooted the speaker on the opposite side. 
The roughs who were first in the field (the Conservatives had 
engaged a band of a hundred roughs, seven of whom were 
known to be prize-fighters) then began to hustle the others, 
and had nearly borne them out of the square, when the police 
made a charge upon them, but without using their staves, and 
for a moment restored order. The same disorderly conduct 
was, however, renewed and several fights took place under 
the eyes of the sheriffs. The crowd swayed to and fro, and 
the din and uproar was so continuous and incessant that the 
rest of the proceedings had to be carried on in dumb show. 
When the sheriff called for a show of hands for Lord Enfield 
every hand on the right of a line drawn from the centre of the 
hustings was held up. For Mr. Labouchere about the same 
number seemed to go up. For Lord George Hamilton all the 
hands on the left of the line went up. The numbers seemed 
pretty nearly divided. It at first appeared that Mr. Labou- 
chere had the show of hands, and the sheriffs had, it was be- 
lieved, decided, or were about to decide, in his favour, when it 
was pointed out to them that many Conservatives had held up 
their hands for Lord Enfield, while, on the other hand, all the 



1869] PARLIAMENTARY AMBITIONS 91 

Liberals had held up both their hands for Mr. Labouchere. 
The sheriffs, after consultation, accordingly declared that 
the show of hands was in favour of Lord Enfield and Lord 
George Hamilton. 

The election took place on November 24, and the result 
of the poll was as follows: 

Lord George Hamilton . . . 7638 votes 
Lord Enfield . . . . . 6387 " 

Mr. Labouchere .... 6297 " 

Before the declaration of the poll, two cabs with placards 
of " Plump for Enfield" were seen in the streets, which were 
followed by others bearing " Plump for Labouchere. " This 
was believed to have been a ruse of the enemy, but there were 
some who thought it was a joke of Labouchere's. He how- 
ever vehemently denied any knowledge of it. There was 
huge excitement at the official declaration of the poll. 
Henry Labouchere, "the real Liberal candidate," as he was 
called, had been met by his friends at Kew Bridge, who had 
accompanied him to the meeting. He was evidently the 
favourite, ^ and the populace took out his horses and insisted 
upon dragging his carriage through the town. Enfield was 
hissed and hooted. Labouchere made a dignified speech, 
in which he referred to the practical disenfranchisement of 
Middlesex, by its election of a Conservative and a Liberal, 
and he insisted strongly and ably upon the necessity of 
organisation in all electioneering work. 

Mr. Labouchere published the following absurd reminis- 
cence of this election in an early number of Truth: "A 
candidate knows very little of the details of his election, but, 
so far as I could make out, dead men played a very important 
part, on both sides, in this contest between Lord George and 
me. No sooner were the booths open than men long re- 

' Times, November 27, 1868. 



92 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1866- 

moved from party strife rose from their graves, and hurriedly- 
voted either for him or for me. "^ 

An amusing episode of the Middlesex election of 1868 was 
the mistake which the supporters of Mr. Labouchere made 
in mistaking Mr. Henry Irving for their defeated candidate. 
Mr. Labouchere himself related the story some sixteen 
years later, when there was a report current that the famous 
actor was about to offer himself as a parliamentary candi- 
date. "Irving did once appear upon the hustings, " he said, 
"and it was in this wise. I was the defeated candidate at a 
Middlesex election. Those were the days of hustings and 
displays, and it was the fashion for each candidate to go 
down to Brentford in a carriage and four to thank his 
supporters. On the morning of the day when I had to 
perform this function, Irving called upon me, and I invited 
him to accompany me. Down we drove. I made an in- 
audible speech to a mob, and we re-entered our carriage to 
return to London. In a large constituency like Middlesex, 
few know the candidates by sight. Irving felt it his duty to 
assume a mme de circonstance. He folded his arms, pressed 
his hat over his brows, and was every inch the baffled politi- 
cian — defeated, sad, but yet sternly resigned to his fate. In 
this character he was so impressive that the crowd came to 
the conclusion that he was the defeated candidate. So woe- 
begone, and so solemnly dignified, did he look that they were 
overcome with etiiotion, and, to show their sympathy, they 
took the horses out of the carriage and dragged it back to 
London. When they left us, I got up to thank them, but 
this did not dispel the illusion. 'Poor fellow,' I heard 
them say, as they watched Irving, ' his feelings are too much 
for him, ' and they patted him, shook hands with him, and 
thanked him. "^ 

A Times leader of November 30 made the following 
comments on the Middlesex election: "In Middlesex, the 
minority has been allowed not only a representative, but a 

I Truth, April, 1878. » Truth, April 24, 1884. 



i869] PARLIAMENTARY AMBITIONS 93 

place at the head of the poll, by the selection of two Liberal 
candidates, almost avowedly in competition, and with some 
unexplained circumstance of personal antagonism. Though 
it is likely enough many of the votes have been split between 
the two successful candidates, it is e /ident on the face of the 
return that a better selected pair of Liberal candidates might 
have carried both seats. Few persons will quarrel with a 
result which gives one of the most important minorities in 
the kingdom a voice in Parliament, but the result is a fluke 
rather than the consequence of a sound intention or of a wise 
provision of law. " 

At the General Election of 1874, ^^- Labouchere made 
another attempt to enter the House of Commons. He first 
offered himself at South wark, but, as he was one of six Liberal 
candidates, he withdrew, and presented himself for election 
at Nottingham. At Nottingham also there was a super- 
fluity of Liberal candidates, but two of these, Mr. Labouchere 
and Mr. Laycock, would probably have got in, had it not 
been for the determined antagonism of Mr. Heath, the 
Labour candidate, to Mr. Labouchere. It was also asserted 
by the leading Liberals of the place that the seats were lost, 
because Mr. Labouchere's advanced Radicalism scandalised 
the Liberal supporters. Be that as it may, the result of 
the election was that two Conservatives were returned for 
Nottingham. Mr. Labouchere was as usual philosophical 
upon the subject of his unsuccessful election: "When one is 
in, " he said, "one wants to be out, and when one is out, one 
wants to be in. La Bruyere says that no married people 
ever pass a week without wishing, at least once, that they 
were unmarried, and so I suspect it is with most M.P.'s. " 

There were many amusing stories about Mr. Labouchere 
current at this time. One of the best that appeared in the 
Nottingham papers during the election was the following: 
"He went to a fancy dress ball in London, wearing diplo- 
matic uniform, and on presenting himself at the door, he 
was refused admission by a policeman. 'Why?' said Mr. 



94 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1866-1869] 

Labouchere. 'Because no one is allowed here in a diplo- 
matic uniform,' said the 'bobby.' 'Confound your im- 
pudence,' growled the ex-member for Middlesex, 'I will 
go in. ' ' Not in diplomatic dress, no one 's to pass here in 
diplomatic togs,' repeated Mr. Bluebottle; 'my order is to 
watch this door for that special purpose. ' ' What 's your 
name, scoundrel?' yelled the financial editor of the World; 
'my name is Labouchere, and I will enter.' 'And mine,' 
rejoined the amateur policeman, * is Lionel Brough. ' They 
walked upstairs arm-in-arm together. " 



CHAPTER V 
JOURNALISM AND THE STAGE 

(i 864-1 880) 

AFTER he had been unseated for Windsor, Mr. Labou- 
chere went abroad for some months, most of which 
time he spent at Nice. He also went to Florence, and was at 
Homburg, in 1868, just before the General Election. His 
connection with journalism began at this period, as he sent 
frequent letters to the Daily News, both from Nice and 
Florence. These were always remarkable for their pithiness 
and wit, although he had by no means developed the style 
which he brought to perfection two years later as "The 
Besieged Resident, " and which made his fame as a journalist. 
In 1868, he became part proprietor of the Daily News, which 
it was decided to issue for the future as a penny paper. ^ 
Sir John Robinson thus describes the syndicate of which Mr. 
Labouchere became a member: "The proprietors of the 
Daily News, a small syndicate which never exceeded ten 
men, were a mixed body, hardly any two of whom had 
anything in common. The supreme control in the ultimate 
resort rested with three of them, Mr. Henry Oppenheim, the 
well-known financier, with politics of no very decided kind ; 
Mr. Arnold Morley, a Right Honourable, an ex-party Whip, 

^The Daily News was the first Liberal daily paper to be published in London 
and at first cost fivepence. It was afterwards reduced to threepence. 

95 



96 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1864- 

and a typical ministerial Liberal; and Mr. Labouchere, the 
Radical, financier, freelance. Others had but a small holding, 
and practically did not count, save as regards any moral 
influence they might bring to bear on their colleagues at 
Board meetings. " ^ 

The new editor selected for the penny Daily News was 
Mr. Frank Hill, but the paper was run at a loss until the 
winter of 1870, when the special war news published in its 
columns caused the circulation to increase in one week from 
50,000 to 150,000. Mr. Robinson, its far-seeing manager, 
attributed the success of the paper, at this period, first, to the 
excellence of his correspondents, and secondly, to his having 
insisted upon having the whole of his news telegraphed to 
London, instead of being transmitted by the post. The 
number of the correspondents on the staff of the Daily News 
during the war was seventeen, of which the chief was Mr. 
Archibald Forbes, who may be rightly described as a prince 
among journalists. Henry Labouchere too had the main 
heureuse where newspapers were concerned. His Paris 
letters were eagerly read all over the civilised world, the 
excitement and interest created by them being even more 
vehement in America than in London. The fortune of the 
Daily News was made, ^ and from then onwards for many 
years the great organ of Liberalism grew and flourished. 
When Mr. Labouchere sold his share ^ in 1895 he did so at a 
large profit. As I shall not have occasion to return again to 
Mr. Labouchere's financial connection with the Daily News, 

' Sir John Robinson, Fifty Years of Fleet Street. 

' It was humorously said at the period that Mr. Robinson (the Manager 
of the Daily News) and Count Bismarck were the only persons who had gained 
by the war, and that only the former deserved to do so. 

3 Mr. Labouchere gave the following reasons for severing his connection 
with the Daily News. "On Mr. Gladstone's withdrawal from public life," he 
wrote in Truth, "the party, or rather a majority of the officialdom of the 
party became tainted with Birmingham imperialism. My convictions did not 
allow me to be connected with a newspaper which supported a clique of in- 
triguers that had captured the Liberal ship, and that accepted blindly these 
intriguers as the representatives of Liberalism in regard to our foreign policy." 



i88o] JOURNALISM AND THE STAGE 97 

I shall give in this place an account Mr. Lionel Robinson 
recently wrote to me of the transaction: "So many contra- 
dictory statements have been put forward in the press with 
reference to the late Mr. Labouchere's pecuniary interest in 
the Daily News, that you may not be unwilling to find space 
for the recollections of one who heard at the time, and sub- 
sequently, various versions of the story. My own impression, 
derived from personal intercourse, is that some time about 
1868 or a little later, Mr. Labouchere purchased a quarter 
share in the newspaper for about £14,000, and further, that 
the vendor was Mr. Henry Rawson of Manchester. I do 
not pretend to know what were the annual profits of the 
paper, beyond the fact that they increased enormously 
during the twenty years dating from the Austro-Prussian 
War and its subsequent developments. It was, therefore, 
not surprising that when Mr. Labouchere decided to sell his 
share in the paper it should have commanded a high price. 
I have heard it, from a certain distance of time from the 
event, placed as high as £92,000, but my personal recollec- 
tion is that the sum mentioned by Mr. Labouchere was 
£62,000 or thereabouts." 

In one of Mr. Labouchere's letters from Nice to the 
Daily News he gave a characteristic account of some of his 
compatriots abroad. The following quotation from it will 
show the reader that, if he had not yet acquired the style of 
his later work, the spirit of it was very active — the spirit 
which made him hate mediocrity and pretentiousness: 
"Here, as in almost every foreign watering-place, there is a 
colony of English Bohemians, who live among themselves, 
give each other tea parties and such mild festivities, frequent 
charity and other public balls, abuse each other and every 
one else, pet the English clergyman or denounce his doctrines, 
worry their Consul with every kind of complaint and re- 
quirement, and keep up a gallant and hopeless struggle to 
penetrate into foreign society. As most of them only speak 
their own language, as the men, who, no doubt, have many 



98 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1864- 

solid virtues, are devoid of the art of pleasing in a mixed 
society, and the women, pillars as they are of virtue, have 
little of the Siren about them, foreign society does not re- 
spond to their advances."^ 

Labouchere was not so successful over his speculation in 
theatre property. In the October of 1867, Messrs. Telbin 
and Moore did up the New Queen's Theatre, formerly St. 
Martin's Hall, in Long Acre, and it was opened under the 
management of Mr. Alfred Wigan, one of the most accom- 
plished comedians of the day. Mr. Alfred Wigan had a 
mysterious partner in management, and Herman Meri- 
vale, who had written a most successful farce, as the curtain 
raiser for the new theatre, gives a charming little account of 
his discovery of the identity of the mysterious personage. 
Alfred Wigan soon wanted some melodrama for the theatre, 
and Merivale wrote a play. Wigan told him that he must 
submit it to his partner. "Two or three days afterwards, " 
writes Merivale, "I was sent in fear and trembling to the 
manager's room at the Queen's, to meet the mysterious 
partner. I was introduced, and, sitting at the table with a 
cigarette in his mouth, I saw Labouchere. ' Good Lord ! ' he 
said, 'are you the eminent author?* 'Heavens!' quoth I, 
^2iTQyou the mysterious partner?' 

" Both of us had carefully concealed our hidden sin at the 
dinner party. ^ What struck me most was a small array of 
bills of the new play hung all round, each printed with a 
different title, that the mysterious partner might see which 
looked best. It was, at all events, bold expenditure. Time 
and the Hour was the title that the authors ^ had hit upon ; 
and Labouchere decided that it should be chosen. 'It 's 
a splendid title, I think,' he said. 'Delighted that you 



' Daily News, Feb. 8, 1869. 

' Merivale and Labouchere had recently met at a dinner party at the house 
of the former's father. 

3 Merivale had collaborated with Palgrave Simpson in the construction 
of the play. 



i88o] JOURNALISM AND THE STAGE 99 

say so,' was my flattered answer. 'It really is, you know. 
Do for any play whatever that ever was written.' " ' 

Time and the Hour, as it turned out, was, in its way, a kind 
of curiosity. For the cast comprised, besides Wigan himself, 
a whole bouquet of coming managers, some of whom were at 
the beginning of their professional careers. There were J. L. 
Toole, Lionel Brough, John Clayton, and Charles Wyndham. 
Other plays acted at the Queen's Theatre under Mr. Labou- 
chere's management were Tom Taylor's Twixt Axe and 
Crown, and H. J. Byron's Dearer than Life. In the former 
the lovely Mrs. Wybert Rousby flashed for the first time in 
her full beauty on the London stage, and in the latter the 
cast included Henry Irving, J. L. Toole, John Clayton, 
Lionel Brough, and Charles Wyndham, and last, but most 
important of all, as Lucy, that clever artist and fascinating 
personaHty, Henrietta Hodson, who afterwards became Mrs. 
Labouchere. Another star at the Queen's Theatre, during 
the first year of Mr. Labouchere's management, was Ellen 
Terry. She thus describes herself playing there in the 
Double Marriage. "As Rose de Beaurepaire, " she writes, 
"I wore a white muslin Directoire dress and looked absurdly 
young. There was one curtain which used to convulse 
Wyndham. He had a line, 'Whose child is this?' and there 
was I looking a mere child myself, and with a bad cold in my 
head too, answering: 'It 's bine!' The very thought of it 
used to send us off into fits of laughter. "^ 

A contemporary picture of Mr. Labouchere at this time is 
given by Mr. George Augustus Sala, in his Life and Adven- 
tures. Mr. Labouchere had begged Sala to write him a play, 
full of exciting situations. "An appointment was made with 
him," said Sala, "to meet Halliday (another dramatic au- 
thor) and myself at ten o'clock one evening at the Queen's 
Theatre. He was then one of the members for the Cotmty of 
Middlesex. He struck me as being in all respects a remark- 

' Herman Merivale, Bar, Stage, and Platform. 
" Ellen Terry, The Story of my Life. 



lOO HENRY LABOUCHERE [1864- 

able man, full of varied knowledge, full withal of humorous 
anecdotes, and with a mother wit very pleasant to listen to. 
His conversation was to me additionally interesting, because, 
when I was in Mexico, I had gone over most of the ground 
which he had travelled." 

The first numbers of Truth abound with news of the 
Queen's Theatre, and the unvarnished accounts Mr. La- 
bouchere gave of the contretemps that occurred during his 
management, and the strange, unexpected things that 
happened, possibly contributed to the lack of consideration 
he experienced as a theatrical manager. Here is part of an 
article devoted to the art of the stage, published during the 
first year of Truth: "The play on which I lost most was an 
adaptation of The Last Days of Pompeii. Everything went 
wrong in this piece. I wanted to have — after the manner of 
the ancients — ^acrobats dancing on the tight rope over the 
heads of the guests at a feast. The guests, however, ab- 
solutely declined to be danced over. Only one acrobat made 
his appearance. A rope was stretched for him, behind the 
revellers, and I trusted to stage illusion for the rest. The 
acrobat was a stout negro. Instead of lightly tripping it 
upon his rope, he moved about like an elephant, and finally 
fell off his rope, like a stricken buffalo. In the second act 
the head of a statue was to fall off, and to crush Mr. Ryder, 
who was a magician. There was a man inside the statue, 
whose mission was to push over its head. With folded arms 
and stem air, Mr. Ryder gazed at the statue, awaiting the 
portentous event that was to crush him to the earth, not- 
withstanding the mystic power that he wielded. The head 
remained firm on its neck. The man inside had solaced 
himself with so much beer, that he was drunk and incapable, 
and Mr. Ryder had, much to the amazement of the audience, 
to knock down the head that was to crush him. In the third 
act the stage represented a Roman amphitheatre. In the 
midst of a gorgeously dressed crowd sat Mr. Ryder. ' Bring 
forth the lion!' he said. The audience thrilled at the idea 



i88o] JOURNALISM AND THE STAGE loi 

of a real lion being marched on to the stage. Now I had no 
lion, and I had discarded the idea of putting a lion skin on a 
donkey. An attendant therefore walked in and said, 'Sir, 
the lion will not come.* Those of the audience who were 
not hissing, roared with laughter. The last act was to re- 
present the eruption of Vesuvius and the destruction of 
Pompeii. The mountain had only been painted just in time 
for the 'first night.' I had never seen it. What was my 
horror when the curtain rose upon a temple with a sort of 
large sugar loaf behind it. At first I could not imagine what 
was the meaning of this sugar loaf. But when it proceeded to- 
emit crackers I found that it was Vesuvius!"^ 

Sometimes he let the theatre, and on that subject he was 
almost pathetic: "Whenever this theatre is to let," he 
wrote, "I am complimented by numerous persons with 
proposals which prove that I am regarded by them as the 
most credulous and confiding of human beings — ^hardly 
indeed a human being, but a simple, convenient lamb . . . 
nothing that I can do convinces them that I am not a lamb 
covered with nice long wool and eager to be shorn. On these 
occasions I remember that the tempering of the wind to the 
shorn lamb is, after all, but a poetical figure, and therefore 
I take care to meet the tempest with a fleece on my back."^ 
He had not a high opinion of dramatic artists, as men of 
business. "I confess," he said, "that for my own part I 
have never understood the meaning of high art in its dignified 
aspect. I never, in the course of my existence, came across 
one of its votaries — painter, sculptor, author, or architect — 
who was ready to sacrifice one farthing of his own at its 
shrine. I once was the owner of a theatre, and I was per- 
petually at war with authors and actors who wanted me to 
ruin myself on the altar of high art, but I soon found that 
this was a term which they used for their own fads. Once I 
produced a play by Charles Reade. It was a failure, and 
on the first night I was sitting with him in a box. 'They 

' Truth, August i6, 1877. ' Ibid., June 12, 1877. 



102 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1864- 

seem to be hissing, Mr. Reade, ' I said. 'What of that? ' he 
repHed; 'if you want to please such a public as this, you 
should not come to me for a play.'"' He had an amusing 
story too to relate of how he rode roughshod over Tom 
Taylor's artistic prejudices b}'' insisting upon a chemical fire 
being lit upon the stage at his production of the latter's Joan 
of Arc, in the flames of which the heroine (Mrs. Rousby) was 
to perish realistically, instead of being wafted to Heaven in 
the arms of angels, as the author had planned she should be. 
But the story of his theatre-management days that he was 
fondest of telling was in connection with the late Sir Henry 
Irving. The latter, at a big banquet he gave to a party of his 
friends, was relating some of the events of his professional 
career. "And to think, Labby," he said, turning to his old 
friend, "that I was once receiving five pounds a week from 
you!" "Three pounds, Henry, my boy," retorted Labou- 
chere quickly, "only three." 

He professed the greatest contempt, and considering the 
financial failure of his management of the Queen's Theatre, 
perhaps naturally so, for those stingy votaries of pleasure 
who were always cadging him for orders for his theatre. 
"Theirs," he said, "is the meanest, most sneaky and con- 
temptible form of beggary." But he got the better of one 
of these beggars. One day his tailor asked him for an order. 
He sent it to him, but the next morning he sent the tailor an 
"order" entitling the bearer to a new suit of clothes. The 
tailor, realising the tit for tat, sensibly complied with the 
request, but ever afterwards bought his tickets for the 
"Queen's" in the conventional manner. Another set of 
persons who encountered his righteous wrath in his theatre 
days were the would-be dramatic authors. He described 
how hundreds of worthless plays were sent him, resembling, 
in their incoherence and lack of perspective, the crude pencil 
drawings of infants. He gave in Truth the opening of one of 
them, further than which, he explained, he did not read: 

' Truth, Nov. 12, 1S87. 



i88o] JOURNALISM AND THE STAGE 103 

" The broad Mississippi is seen rolling its turbid flood towards 
the ocean, and carrying with it the debris of a village. 
Steamers come and go on its surface. On a frail raft a man 
and a woman are crossing the river. Enter the negroes 
from a plantation monotonously singing."^ 

He attributed the failure of his own adaptation of Sar- 
dou's La Patrie to the narrow powers of appreciation pos- 
sessed by Londoners. "They fancy," he wrote, "that no 
drama or melodrama can be good, which does not conform 
to certain rules. The heroine must be the purest and the 
best of her sex; she must engage in a struggle with adverse 
circumstances, and with bad men; and she must emerge, in 
the last act, triumphant. The audience, in fact, must leave 
the theatre, not only pleased with her acting, but with her. 
Now, the heroine of Fatherland is Dolores, and the plot turns 
upon her betrayal of her husband. This was fatal to the 
success of the play, but it is an open question whether it 
ought to have been fatal to it. Conventionalism is the bane 
of advance in art. " 

All things considered, it was not surprising that Mr. 
Labouchere's proprietorship of the Queen's Theatre was a 
financial failure. Joseph Hatton gives a curious description 
of the way in which Mr. Labouchere managed the business, 
the facts of which he got from the same personal interview 
already quoted: "Sometimes he brought out plays himself. 
He generally lost by them, but now and then had a success. 
Occasionally in the preparations for a new production he 
would go abroad. When particularly wanted by the manage- 
ment, he could not be found. The work went on, however, 
all the same, and so did the loss. Once he was advised to 
cram the house for a week with orders, so that nobody could 
get in. The traditional 'Full' was posted at all the en- 
trances. He did this on condition that, after a week, every 
one should be compelled to pay. When the second week 
came the house was empty. Then the actors complained. 

^ Truth, November 8, 1877. 



I04 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1864- 

They could not act to empty benches. 'Why don't you 
draw?' was Labouchere's reply to their grievance. 'Draw! 
confound it! Why don't you draw?' He announced 
Shakespearean revivals, proposing to produce one new play 
of the bard's in splendid style every year. Notices were put 
up at all the entrances, inviting the audiences to vote on the 
piece. For a long time he worked up quite an excitement by 
posting up the result of the voting. 'This was a capital 
idea; it increased the number who paid at the door im- 
mensely.' Nevertheless the Queen's did not prove a 
success, and it has lately been converted into a co-operative 
store. "^ 

At every period of his life, Mr. Labouchere displayed all 
the happiest characteristics of the Bohemian, or, what comes 
to the same thing, the instincts of the real aristocrat. He was 
comfortably at home in whatever social milieu he happened 
to find himself — a camp of nomadic Indians, a Coiu't ball, a 
rowdy hustings, the manager's room of a London theatre, 
the vie intime of a royal country house, or the bourgeois 
domesticity of a thrifty German home — and he was welcomed 
and appreciated in every one of them — except by the prigs 
and the bores. 

He knew his London well. "I have lived in London 
many years. I have known the seamy side of London life for 
far more than a quarter of a century, and am familiar with 
every detail of the 'old days' as they are called. I can 
compare the present with the past, decency with disgust, 
order with license, and remember the time when we supped 
in a cellar under the Portico, where the Pall Mall restaurant 
now stands, when the Haymarket cafes were open as long as 
customers patronised them. I can recall the nights when 
Panton Street and Jermyn Street were lined with watchmen 
and confederates, and admittance was only gained to certain 
favoured meeting-places by giving a sign, or peeping through 
a slit in the door or guichet. ... I have seen a Chancellor 

' Joseph Hatton, Journalistic London. 



i88o] JOURNALISM AND THE STAGE 105 

and a Cabinet Minister watching with amused gaze a scene, 
which was at least decorous on the surface, at the Argyll 
Rooms in Windmill Street, and, listening to excellent music, 
I have sat unnoticed up in the corner of the old Holbom 
Casino, where the Holbom restaurant now stands. I have 
seen some wild scenes at the Foley Street rooms (Mott's) 
in the early hours of the morning, and hideous scenes at 222 
Piccadilly — the 'Pic' as it was then called — since pulled 
down and destroyed for the now palatial Criterion. In the 
warm summer nights I have driven down to Cremome, and 
wandered there till the daylight, in lilac and purple, came out 
above the tall trees and put out the yellow glare of the gas. 
I have even condescended to the decorous dissipation of 
Caldwell's dancing rooms, beloved by milliners, and now 
turned into a National School. I have been an eye-witness 
of the ups and downs of London life, and the so-called 
humours of the West End, I have observed the contest 
between common-sense and prudery, between the men of 
liberal mind and those determined to make the vicious 
virtuous by Act of Parliament. I have lived through the 
changes of licensing rules and closing hours, and seen one 
place of amusement after another shut up and confiscated — 
the decorous tarred with the same brush as the dirty. 
Cremorne and the Holborn Casino bombarded equally with 
Mott's and the Piccadilly Saloon, . . ." he wrote in the 
course of an article, which ended with one of the most 
powerful indictments of British virtue ever published,^ and 
it was during the sixteen years that elapsed between his 
departure from the Diplomatic Service and his entrance to 
the House as the "Christian" member for Northampton 
that he acquired most of his vast experimental knowledge 
of the artistic and vagabond side of human nature about 
town. 

He was close upon fifty when he entered upon his serious 
Parliamentary life, which was, as all who knew him well are 

* " The Ghastly Gaymarket," Truth, Dec. 8, 1881. 



io6 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1864- 

aware, but a phase, though an important one, in his extra- 
ordinarily varied career. Three episodes stand out with 
clearness, apart from his abortive electioneering experiences 
already described, in the years between 1864 and his first 
Northampton election — his residence in Paris throughout the 
siege, his connection with the World, as its financial editor, 
and his founding of his own weekly publication. Truth. The 
first of these is described in a separate chapter, and so, with 
equal necessity, is the third. For an account of how he came 
to be on the staff of the World we must go to the Recollections 
of the late Mr. Edmund Yates himself, who relates that, 
previous to launching the first number of his journal upon 
the public, he had issued a very original prospectus. " I had 
also sent a prospectus to Mr. Henry Labouchere," he con- 
tinued, "with whom I had a slight acquaintance, and whose 
services as a literary freelance might, I thought, be utilised. 
Some days after, I saw Mr. Labouchere on the Cup Day at 
Ascot, seated on the box of a coach. I asked him if he had 
heard from me, and he said, *0h, yes,' adding that he 
'thought the prospectus very funny.' 'But,' I said, 'will 
you help us in carrying it out — will you be one of us?* 
'You don't mean to say,' he replied, 'that you actually 
mean to start a paper of the kind set forth?' I told him 
most assuredly we did, and that we wanted his assistance. 
He laughed more than ever, and said he would let me know 
about it. A few days after, I heard from him, proposing to 
write a series of city articles, which he actually commenced 
in the second number." 

Labouchere's preliminary article in the World^ was 
extremely droll. It began as follows : "Some years ago, Mr. 
John F. Walker, having derived a considerable fortune from 
cheating at cards in Mississippi steamboats, determined to 
enjoy his well-earned gains in his native city of New York, 
and purchased an excellent house in that metropolis. In 
order to add to his income he advertised that he was a 
» The World, July 15, 1874. 



i88o] JOURNALISM AND THE STAGE 107 

'reformed gambler,' and, for a consideration, would instruct 
novices in all the tricks of his trade. Mr. Walker was 
universally esteemed by his fellow-citizens, and died last 
year, greatly regretted by a numerous body of friends and 
admirers. In casting about for the city editor for our jour- 
nal, we have fallen upon a gentleman, who, by promoting 
rotten companies, puffing worthless stock, and other dis- 
reputable, but strictly legal, devices, has earned a modest 
competence. He resides in a villa at Clapham, he attends 
church every Sunday with exemplary regularity, and is the 
centre of a most respectable circle of friends ; many of his old 
associates still keep up their acquaintance with him, and there- 
fore he is in a position to know all that passes in the city. This 
reformed speculator we have engaged to write our city article." 
The staff of writers selected by Mr. Yates for the first 
year of the World was a singularly efficient one. It com- 
prised, besides Mr. Labouchere, Mr. T. H. S. Escott, Dr. 
Birkbeck Hill, Lord Winchelsea (who contributed articles on 
racing and turf matters), M. Camille Barrere, Mrs. Lynn 
Linton, Mr. F. I. Scudamore, Mr. Archibald Forbes, and Mr. 
Henry Lucy (who commenced, in the eighth number, his 
series of Parliamentary Sketches, " Under the Clock"). But, 
in spite of the excellent writers engaged on its production, 
the World did not sell well. Again it was the main heureuse 
of Henry Labouchere that gave the necessary push to make 
the new weekly go. Mr. Yates v/rites as follows: "Mr. 
Labouchere was dealing with City matters in a way which 
they had never been dealt with before, and ruthlessly attack- 
ing and denouncing Mr. Sampson, the city editor of the 
Times, whose position and virtue had hitherto been consid- 
ered impregnable. All these features . . . received due 
appreciation from our provincial confreres, and the 'trade,' 
but, as yet, they seemed to have made no impression on the 
public. We were in the desperate condition of having a good 
article to sell without the power of making that fact known. 
At last, and just in the nick of time, we obtained the requisite 



io8 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1864- 

public notice, and without paying anything for it. A 
stockbroker, a member of the Stock Exchange, who conceived 
himself hkely to be attacked for certain practices by Mr. 
Labouchere in the city article, threatened to horsewhip that 
gentleman, should such observations appear, and Mr. Labou- 
chere had the would-be assailant brought before the Lord 
Mayor for threatening to commit a breach of the peace. 
The case was really a trivial one, and it was settled by the 
defendant being bound over in sureties for good behaviour. 
But it had been argued at full length, each side being re- 
presented by eminent lawyers; Mr. Thesiger, Q.C., appeared 
for the defendant and Mr. (afterwards Sir) George Lewis for 
Mr. Labouchere. A great deal was said about the World, 
and its determination to purge Capel Court of all engaged in 
iniquitous dealings. All that was said was reported at 
length in the daily papers. The effect v/as instantaneous; 
the circulation rose at once, and the next week showed a very 
large increase of advertisements." 

The case, as Mr. Yates says, was a trivial one, but 
remarkable for Mr. Labouchere's irresistibly funny way of 
giving evidence. It was tried on October 14, 1874, at the 
Guild Hall, and in answer to the Lord Mayor, he gave the 
most absurd account of the assault as it occurred : 

" ' I said to him (Mr. Abbott) : " I presume that if you were 
attacked in a newspaper unfairly, you would bring an action 
for libel, and if you won it you would get heavy damages. " 
He replied : "I should not go into Court ; I know what news- 
papers want; they always want to go into Court, it is a fine 
advertisement for them. I should horsewhip the man." 
"Well," I said, "under the circumstances, the observation 
is a personal one, and I reply to you, in the words of Dr. 
Johnson, ' I shall not be deterred from unmasking a scoun- 
drel by the menaces of a ruffian. ' " He then said he presumed 
I meant this for him, or something of that sort. I said, 
"Well, it looks like it. You were just now talking about 
horsewhipping; why don't you begin?" ' 



i88o] JOURNALISM AND THE STAGE 109 

" Mr. Thesiger: * In that tone of voice? * 

'"Very much Hke that,' drawled on Mr. Labouchere. 
'He then stared at me, and I repeated: "Well, why don't 
you begin?" I don't know what his object was, but he 
rolled himself about and threw up his hands. I presume 
he intended to frighten me by an exhibition of what he 
imagined to be a pugilistic attitude more than anything 
else. I again said : "Why do you not begin? " He then hit 
me a blow.' " 

"Have you any fear of Mr. Abbott?" asked Mr. Lewis, 
later on in the proceedings. "Well, no," replied Mr. 
Labouchere. "When I was at Spezia, I used to bathe a good 
deal in the Gulf and there were a quantity of porpoises — " 
But what Mr. Abbott's behaviour had to with porpoises, 
was never revealed to the Court, for, in spite of the hisses of 
the audience, who wanted to hear the end of Mr. Labou- 
chere's story, Mr. Thesiger interrupted, saying sharply: 
"This is really making a farce of a Court of Justice. " 

" I am a calculator, not a speculator, " was one of Labou- 
chere's retorts to Mr. Thesiger. "A distinction," said Mr. 
Thesiger, when summing up for his client, "that Mr. Labou- 
chere will be able to explain to his own satisfaction, but 
perhaps not to that of other people. " 

Mr. Grenville Murray was another able writer on the staff 
of the World, and was for some time Mr. Yates's partner in 
the proprietorship of the paper, but the partnership was dis- 
solved because Mr. Yates disapproved of Murray's repeated 
attacks upon Lord Derby. It would have been well if Mr. 
Labouchere had been as prudent as Mr. Yates. When Mr. 
Labouchere started Truth, he persuaded Mr. Grenville 
Murray to write some of his " Queer Stories, " and it was one 
of these that brought upon the editor of Truth the wrath, 
never to be assuaged, of a very important personage. Mr. 
Labouchere told me once that, by some accident, he never 
saw the "Queer Story" in question, until it had actually 
appeared in print. Had he done so, he should never have 



no HENRY LABOUCHERE [1864- 

permitted its publication. Reference had already been 
made to Mr. Labouchere's somewhat imprudent champion- 
ship of the ex-Consul of Odessa, but, when it was asserted 
in a much-read weekly that Mr. Labouchere was the proprie- 
tor of the Queen's Messenger,'^ he was obliged to send the 
following letter to the Times: 

2 Bolton Street, July 5, 1869. 
Sir, — Having been informed that the proprietorship of the 
Queen^s Messenger has been attributed to me by a weekly news- 
paper, I shall be much obliged to you to allow me a space in your 
columns to deny the statement. I have not, and never had, 
directly or indirectly, anything to do with the Queen's Messenger. 

Henry Labouchere. 

An old member of the staff of the World, in a recently pub- 
lished article commenting upon certain unintentional mis- 
statements of a definite nature that had appeared from time 
to time in the press in connection with the two gifted editors 
respectively of the World and Truth, said, after dealing with 
one relating to Mr. Labouchere's supposed partnership with 
Mr. Yates: "Equally contrary to fact is the statement, even 
more generally made and accepted, that Mr. Labouchere 
severed his connection with the World, and founded Truth, 
as the sequel of personal differences between himself and his 
sometime editor. No such personal differences occurred at 
any period; and, though Yates would have been more than 
human if he had rejoiced at the decision of a particularly 
able member of his staff to leave him, in order to start another 
journal, planned on parallel lines and appealing to the same 

' Mr. Grenville Murray, who was the editor of the Qiieen's Messenger, was 
assaulted by Lord Carrington on account of an article he wrote about the 
latter's father, and out of the case which Mr. Grenville Murray brought against 
Lord Carrington arose Mr. Murray's prosecution for perjury, which resulted 
in his departure from England. He died in Paris in 1881. It was at the time 
of the scandal aroused by the article for which Lord Carrington assaulted 
Grenville Murray, that Mr. Labouchere was accused of being the proprietor 
of the paper. 



i88o] JOURNALISM AND THE STAGE iii 

public, he was far too shrewd a man of the world to show any 
sense of grievance or resentment. It happened that the 
news of Mr. Labouchere's project first reached his editor's 
ears through the medium of a third person; and on being 
challenged by Yates, as to the truth of the rumour, the 
imperturbable 'Labby' characteristically replied that he 
had decided for the future to have a pair of boots of his own 
with which to do his own kicking. Rivals, in a journalistic 
sense, as they thenceforth necessarily became, the friendly 
personal relations between the two were maintained to the 
last, and the weekly mutual corrections of 'Henry' by 
'Edmund' and vice versa, which caused so much diversion 
to the readers of both papers, were conducted at all times in 
an entirely amicable spirit."^ 

Mr. Montesquieu Bellew, another journalist of that time, 
was an intime of Mr. Labouchere's. On the occasion of Mr. 
Bellew's son choosing the stage as his profession, Mr. Labou- 
chere took the opportunity of writing in Truth a racy article, 
in which he related the whole story of his friendship and 
travels in company with this most unconventional parson. 
They must indeed have been a queer pair, and it is interest- 
ing to imagine the effect they must have produced together 
at the various tables d'hote and social functions they attended 
on their journey. They became acquainted in this wise. 
Mr. Labouchere was idling one day on the steps of his hotel 
at Venice, when he noticed a gentleman paying his bill and 
tipping the porters preparatory to taking his departure. His 
carriage was waiting for him at the door. "Where are you 
going? " said Mr. Labouchere, on the impulse of the moment. 
"To the Holy Land," replied the stranger. "Wait five 
minutes," replied Labouchere, "and I will come with you." 
He flew to his room and flung his clothes into his portmanteau 
and joined Mr. Bellew, who was waiting for him. He did not, 
however, discover the identity of his travelling companion 
until they reached Jerusalem, although he knew that he was 

' The World, Jan. 23, 1912. 



112 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1864- 

a clergyman, because every night before retiring to rest Mr. 
Belle w pressed a manuscript sermon into his hand, for "night- 
reading. " At Jerusalem, Mr. Bellew broke to him that, his 
bishop being in the place, he should probably be asked to 
preach in the English Church. Labouchere took this as a 
hint that Mr. Bellew would like him to be present, so he made 
his plans accordingly. Finding out at what precise moment 
of the service the sermon would begin, he marched into the 
church with great impressiveness, at the head of a large band 
of Arabs and others, whom he had bribed to accompany him. 
This, he explained afterwards to Bellew, was to create in the 
bishop's mind the impression that Bellew was such a prodigy 
of piety that even the inhabitants of the country places of 
Syria had heard of his fame and were come in flocks to gaze 
upon him. The bishop's annoyance on the occasion he 
assured Bellew was entirely due to his jealousy of his more 
popular confrere. They quarrelled on the journey. Bellew 
pointed out to Labouchere a small stream. "That, " he said, 
"is the source of the Jordan." Labouchere pointed out 
another stream, declaring that that and that alone was the 
source of the Jordan. They argued the matter hotly, but 
Labouchere was not aware how deeply Bellew had taken the 
affair to heart, until he found himself in bed that night with 
no manuscript sermon under his pillow. But Bellew was a 
Christian and a man of tact. The next day in the coirrse of 
their wanderings, they came upon another minute trickle of 
water. "That, " said Bellew, with a note of conciliation in his 
voice, "is the source of the Jordan; we were both in the wrong 
yesterday." "Of course it is," assented Labouchere; "how 
in the world we came to make such a mistake I can't 
imagine. " From Jerusalem they went on to the Dead Sea. 
Bellew had picturesque-looking long white hair, which he 
would comb and arrange before a looking-glass that accom- 
panied him on all his travels. This looking-glass got upon 
Labouchere's nerves, so one day "I got hold of it, " he related, 
'and sent it to join Sodom and Gomorrah beneath the 



i88o] JOURNALISM AND THE STAGE 113 

gloomy waters that stretched out beneath us. The next 
night, we pitched our tent in the desert. Dire was the 
confusion on rising. The looking-glass could not be found. 
I held my tongue respecting its fate. Probably some day or 
another some eminent explorer, poking about the bottom of 
the Dead Sea, will fish up this looking-glass, and we shall have 
archaeologists divided in opinion, one half proving that it 
belonged to a lady of Sodom and the other half that it was 
the property of a gentleman of Gomorrah. Belle w was equal 
to the occasion. He managed to arrange his hair by looking 
into the back of a dessert spoon. " ^ Mr. Bellew contributed 
a most interesting account of his journey to the East in the 
first number of Temple Bar called "Over Babylon to Baal- 
beck."^ He does not, however, mention in it his travel- 
ling companion, nor any of the incidents referred to by Mr. 
Labouchere in his account of the same journey. Mr. Bellew 
subsequently joined the Church of Rome, and died in 1874. 
On one of Mr. Labouchere' s frequent visits to Italy, he 
met Dumas pere, with whom he had an amusing adventure. 
Strolling into a restaurant at Genoa for breakfast, he per- 
ceived Dumas at another table, and, seated by his side, a very 
pretty girl, dressed like a Circassian boy, young enough to be 
Dumas' s granddaughter. To continue the story in his own 
words: "Dumas told me that they had just landed from a 
yacht and were spending the day in Genoa. He introduced 
the girl to me as Emile. After luncheon he proposed that we 
should all take a carriage, and go and see a show villa in the 
neighbourhood. When we reached the villa, we were told 
that it was not open to the public on that day. * Inform your 
master, ' said Dumas to the servant, ' that Alexandre Dumas 
is at his door. ' The servant returned, and told us that we 
could enter. We were ushered into a dining-room, present- 
ing a typically Italian domestic scene. The father and 
mother of the family were present, and several well-grown 
boys and girls, Dumas was somewhat taken aback for a 

' Truth, October ii, 1877. ' Temple Bar, December i, i860. 



114 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1864- 

moment, but introduced Emile and me vaguely as 'mes 
enfants. ' As we were asked to sit down to coffee we made 
ourselves at home. Afterwards the owner showed us his 
garden. He and Dumas walked first. Emile and I wandered 
about hand-in-hand to denote our brotherly and sisterly 
affection. The Circassian was in a playful mood, and told 
me that Dumas was of a jealous disposition, which grand- 
fathers sometimes are. He had one eye on the beauties of 
the garden and the other on his children. 'What are you 
doing?' said Dumas. I replied that I was embracing my 
sister. As he could not well object to this, for once, I think, 
I got the better of the lady's eminent grandfather. " He had 
a story too of the younger Dumas. Labouchere was at the 
wedding of Mile. Maria Dumas, and her brother, on coming 
to the sacristy with all the family friends for the signature of 
the register, looked at the document for a minute, as if 
perusing it carefully, and then said with mock gravity, "The 
accused have nothing further to add for their defence? Be it 
so ! " And then he signed. 

Mr. Labouchere's curiosity at this period of his life was 
insatiable. He wanted to know what it felt like to be a 
criminal about to be hanged. So, having procured an 
invitation to see all over Newgate, he carried out his experi- 
ment, and described his sensations in the columns of the 
Daily News. After giving a vivid account of the prison and 
some of its inmates, he wrote the following realistic lines: 
"And now we were led through a long stone passage open to 
the sky. This was the Newgate graveyard. Beneath each 
flag is the corpse of a murderer, and on the walls opposite are 
their initials, which have been cut by the warders to guide 
them through this murderous labyrinth. At the other end of 
the passage is the execution yard. The scaffold is put up the 
night before an execution, in a corner close by the door through 
which the condemned prisoner issues. The court is sur- 
rounded by high gloomy walls, and looks like the ante-chamber 
of Hades. I asked the warder whether in his opinion murder- 



i88o] JOURNALISM AND THE STAGE 115 

ers preferred being executed in public or private. He opined 
the former. 'The crowd keeps them up,' he said. 'They 
are not so firm, now it takes place in private. * I understand 
this feeling. If I were going to be hanged myself I should 
like the ceremony to take place coram populo. I should feel 
myself already dead in that dreary yard; and I should 
prefer, I imagine, after weeks or months of prison life, to 
have one more look at the world, even though that world 
were a howling mob, before quitting it for ever. 

"We passed through the chapel and were shown the 
chair on which the prisoners condemned to death are perched 
— in obedience to what seems to me a barbarous custom — 
to hear their last sermon, and then we entered the 'Press 
Room.' It is a room of moderate size with plain deal 
tables, benches, and cupboards. One of these latter the 
warder opened, and showed us Jack Sheppard's chains, and 
other interesting relics, which are as religiously preserved as 
though they had belonged to saints. A leather sort of 
harness was also brought out. It consisted of two belts 
with straps attached to the lower one for the wrists. This 
is the murderer's last dress, and with it round him he walks 
to the scaffold. I tried it on, and when my hands were 
buckled to my side, I pictured to myself my sensations if 
I had been waiting to fall into the procession to the neigh- 
bouring yard. I heard my funeral bell toll ; I saw the ordin- 
ary by my side; the warders telling me that my time was 
up; Calcraft bustling about eager to begin. So strong was 
the impression that I hastened to get out of the prison, and 
was not fully convinced that I was not going to be hanged 
until I found myself in the midst of a crowd in Fleet Street, 
who, for reasons best known to themselves, were cheering 
the ' Claimant, ' who was issuing from a shop, while a chimney 
sweep who was passing by was welcomed as Bogle, being 
mistaken for that dusky retainer."^ 

With reference to the "Claimant," Mr. George Augustus 

' Daily News, February 19, 1872. 



ii6 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1864- 

Sala has a curious story to relate about him and Mr. Labou- 
chere, who, of course, took the greatest interest in the famous 
trial. "I saw a great deal of the Claimant during 1872," 
says Mr. Sala, "and I remember once dining with him and 
the late Mr, Serjeant Ballantine at the house of Mr. Labou- 
chere, who then resided in Bolton Street, Piccadilly. The 
senior member for Northampton had, upon occasion, a 
curious way of putting things; and over the walnuts and 
the wine — of which our host was not a partaker — he startled 
us all by coolly asking his obese guest, 'Are you Arthur 
Orton?' 'Good Heavens, Mr. Labouchere,' exclaimed the 
stout litigant, ' what do you mean? ' ' Oh, nothing in partic- 
ular,' quoth Mr. Labouchere; 'help yourself to some more 
claret.' "^ 

Mr. Labouchere however afterwards was quite convinced 
that the Claimant was not Orton. When the latter was 
released from penal servitude in 1884, he published the 
following reminiscence : 

"It is a curious fact that during his trial the London 
papers sold more copies than during the Franco-Prussian 
War, or any other recent eventful epoch. I confess that 
it never was proved absolutely to my mind that he was 
Arthur Orton; on the other hand, whilst there was the 
strongest presumption that he was, he entirely failed to make 
out that he was Sir Roger Tichborne. I remember once 
during the trial, in company with Mr. G. A. Sala, passing 
an evening with the ' stout nobleman ' at his hotel in Jermyn 
Street. We found him very pleasant, and he told us many 
tales of his existence in Australia. He certainly had a 
wonderful command over his features. On that last day 
of the civil trial, the room at the hotel was filled with adher- 
ents, many of whom were Tichborne bondholders. Suddenly 
the Claimant walked in. He leant against the mantelpiece, 
took his cigar out of his mouth, and announced the fatal 
news. Great was the excitement, great was the despair and 

* G. A. Sala, Life and Adventures. 



i88o] JOURNALISM AND THE STAGE 117 

the indignation. But the Claimant calmly smoked on, 
apparently the only person in the room who had no sort of 
interest in the matter."^ 

Soon after Mr. Labouchere's founding of Truth, he 
became involved in several lawsuits, the most famous of 
which, at this period, was the one which indirectly led to 
his expulsion from the Beefsteak Club. He invariably 
commented with great wit and asperity upon his enemies, 
frustrated and otherwise, in the columns of his paper, and 
there is no doubt that its enormous popularity depended 
in large degree upon the fearlessness and unconvention- 
ality with which he attacked all persons of high degree and 
low, guilty of injustice, bullying, snobisme, or wilfully ignor- 
ant prejudice, who, for long, had been silently endured by 
their weaker brethren, for no other reason than because 
there had never before been a — Labby. 

Sometimes he was accused by an envious press of being 
a liar. The title he had chosen for his paper possibly pro- 
voked the criticism. He was rather sensitive on the subject, 
and expressed a certain amount of annoyance whenever the 
well-known ditty of Sir Henry Bridges, " Labby in our 
Abbey," which was published in M. A. P., was mentioned.^ 
In Truth he once produced what may be called an apposite 
alibi when confronted by the accusation. Some correspon- 
dent had referred rather pointedly to the existence of Lying 
Clubs in the last century. "There is no occasion to go back 
to the last century to prove the existence of Lying Clubs," 

^ Truth, October 23, 1884. 

' The first and last verses are as follows: 

Of all the boys that are so smart The ministers and members all 

There 's none like crafty Labby; Make game of truthful Labby, 
He learns the secret of each heart. Though but for him it 's said they 'd be 

And lives near our Abbey; A sleepy set and flabby; 

There is no lawjrer in the land And when their seven long years are out. 

That 's half as sharp as Labby; They hope to bury Labby; 
He is a demon in the art Ah then how peacefully he '11 lie, 

And guileless as a babby! But not in our Abbey! 



ii8 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1864-1880! 

he wrote. "When I was at Bishop- Auckland in Coiinty 
Durham, a few years ago, I found a Lying Club existing and 
flourishing. There were different grades of proficiency. If 
a man could not lie at all, he was expelled. If he lied rather 
badly, he was given another trial. I never knew any one 
expelled. I was blackballed." 



CHAPTER VI 
THE BESIEGED RESIDENT 

(Sept., 1870-Feb., 1871) 

MR. LABOUCHERE was a famous raconteur and of the 
reminiscences he loved to recount there was no more 
riveting a series than the one relating his experiences as a 
journalist during the siege of Paris. According to the 
Times ^ nothing that he ever achieved in journalism or 
literature excelled or perhaps equalled the letters of a "Be- 
sieged Resident," which he sent from Paris to the Daily 
News, in the autumn and winter of 1870 and 1871. The 
correspondent of the Daily News in Paris at that period was 
the late Mr. George Morland Crawford, who had occupied 
the position since 1851. Mr. Crawford had already made 
Mr. Labouchere's acquaintance in the early sixties, when 
the latter was an attache at Frankfort, and they had met 
again later on at Homburg. It had been the intention of 
Mr. Crawford to remain at his post in Paris, when an im- 
expected offer from Henry Labouchere to replace him tem- 
porarily caused him to alter his plans. 

Mrs. Crawford has given a graphic account^ of how 
Labouchere took her husband's place as correspondent. 
He had been in Paris with the exception of some excursions 
into the country for several weeks, and had invited Mr. 

' Times, January 17, 1912. ' Truth, January 24, 1912. 

119 



I20 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1870- 

Crawford to dine with him at Durand's on the night of 
September 17, The party was to have included Aurelien 
SchoU, celebrated then as a wit, Got of the Comedie Frangaise, 
Dr. Alan Herbert, and Mr. Frank Lawley. However, the 
xmcertainty of immediate events and the general rush of 
departure from the capital obliged Labouchere to put off 
his party. He went at about six o'clock to the Cafe du 
Vaudeville to find Mr. Crawford — ^first to tell him that the 
dinner was countermanded, and then to propose to take his 
place as correspondent in Paris, whilst he, Mr. Crawford, 
should go to Tours. Mrs. Crawford happened to be with 
her husband at the cafe, and she thus describes the impression 
Labouchere made upon her: 

" Labby looked a young man on this, to me, memorable 
evening, but, at the close of the siege, frightened Odo Russell 
by looking almost an old one. Before my husband, who was 
writing, introduced us he began to talk to me and I could 
not make him out, but at once enjoyed his company. He 
had a very pleasing and intelligent face, I thought spoke a 
little like an American (he had been escorting a party of 
American young ladies to Rouen), had high caste manners, 
but with naturalness, and much that was the reverse of that 
affectation of owlish wisdom or cordial dodgery then rife 
in the diplomatic world. I saw that he was somebody, 
both on his own account, and from education, and thought 
that he might be some Don brought up in England, who had 
made himself the president of a South American Republic." 

As soon as Mr. Crawford had finished his writing, Labou- 
chere broached the subject of the Daily News. He said: 
"A fancy seized me, as Sheffield (of the British Embassy) 
told me you had sent your little children to England, and 
your wife had resolved to stay through the siege and give 
you what help she can. It is to take your place as corre- 
spondent of the Daily News, and to send you iato the pro- 
vinces. As I am a proprietor of the paper, Robinson won't 
object to this arrangement. It would be an excellent thing 



i87i] THE BESIEGED RESIDENT 121 

for my heirs were I to stop a bullet or die of starvation, but 
were anything of the sort to befall you it would be calamitous 
for you and yours. You need not leave me the six weeks' 
provisions which Sheffield told me you laid in, but can give 
them to poor neighbours. I can always get as much fresh 
mutton as I want from the porter of the British Embassy, 
who has orders to this effect. There is a flock of ewes and 
wethers on the grounds there, to browse on the grass and eat 
the hay laid in for the horses of Lord Lyons, before he had 
directions from Granville to go to Tours to watch events 
there. The only person at the Embassy is the porter. We 
two will have more mutton than we can eat even if the siege 
lasts long. The porter knows how to grow potatoes and 
mushrooms in an empty cellar, so that we two shall have not 
only meat but dainties to vary the dishes. I have arranged to 
have rooms at the Grand Hotel, so you see I shall be in 
clover." 

Mrs. Crawford, who did not the least believe he was in 
earnest, protested that she was not at all afraid of remaining 
in Paris, but Labouchere persisted in his persuasions. 

"If you were at all affected," he replied, "I should say, 
'Don't be theatrical.' Instead of that I shall say, 'Don't 
be like Lot's wife.'" Then he took out his watch and 
explained that the last train to leave Paris between then and 
the end of the siege would start from the Gare St. Lazare 
that night at 9.40. "I advise you to go home at once," he 
went on, "and pack up what clothes you can for your tem- 
porary residence at the seat of the delegate government at 
Tours. Lyons will be glad to have you near him, for, as 
you can understand, he knows nothing personally of those 
friends of yours whom the Revolution has brought to the 
top." 

Mrs. Crawford lost no more time in discussion, and hur- 
ried off to make her preparations in order to catch the last 
train by which she and her husband could get out of Paris. 
The 9.40 train did not leave St. Lazare that day before 



122 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1870- 

midnight, and such was its weight of passengers and bag- 
gage that no fewer than three engines had to be coupled on. 

The next day Mr. Labouchere sent his first letter to 
London, in his capacity of Paris correspondent to the Daily 
News. The mails continued to leave Paris regularly for 
another three days, but the chaos that prevailed in the post- 
office did not inspire the citizens who entrusted their cor- 
respondence to its tender care with overmuch confidence. 

"Everybody was in military uniform," writes Labouchere, 
"everybody was shrugging his shoulders, and everybody was 
in the condition of a London policeman, were he to see him- 
self marched off to prison by a street sweeper. That the 
Prussians should have taken the Emperor prisoner and 
have vanquished the French armies, had of course astonished 
these French bureaucrats, but that they should have ven- 
tured to interfere with postmen had perfectly dumbfounded 
them." Having disposed of his letter as best he might, 
Labouchere passed through the courtyard to try his luck 
with a telegram. There he saw postmen seated on the boxes 
of carts, with no horses before them. It was their hour to 
carry out the letters, and thus mechanically they fulfilled 
their duty. It is in touches such as these that the writer 
makes the scenes of the winter months of '70 and '71 live 
before the eyes of his readers. Were the ridiculous episodes 
he relates visible to others besides himself, or were his 
journalistic abilities so acutely developed that nothing 
significant, however minute, could escape his eager scrutiny? 
It is not easy to say, but the fact remains that he gave the 
world at that time, in astonishingly amusing letters, vivid 
pictures of bureaucracy startled into ludicrous attitudes 
of unaccustomed enterprise, of gilt and tinsel patriotism 
ineffectually trying to replace the paper courage^ of Imperial 

^The Emperor's plan of campaign was to mass 150,000 men at Metz; 
100,000 at Strassburg, and 50,000 at the Camp at Chilons. It was then his 
intention to unite the armies at Metz and Strassburg, and to cross the Rhine 
at Maxau, to force the States of South Germany to observe neutrality. He 



i87i] THE BESIEGED RESIDENT 123 

France — of an irresponsible populace brought face to face 
with a catastrophe which they imagined to be impossible 
up till within the last ten days of the siege. 

The Parisians had undoubtedly a good excuse for the 
poor figure they were obliged to cut before Europe in the 
January of 1871. Events, which every one, except their 
ex-Emperor and his government, had predicted as inevitable, 
had followed one another with a disastrous rapidity, leaving 
them, after each one, houches Mantes , incapable of deciding 
whether the most appropriate gesture to express their atti- 
tude would be one of applause, of hisses, or of weeping. 

Only six months had elapsed since the afternoon of the 
Emperor's reception, at St. Cloud, of the members of the 
Senate, when M. Rouher had said, during the course of his 
address, in words that, to-day, sound as if they must have 
been meant to be ironical: " Yoiu" Majesty has occupied the 
last four years in perfecting the armament and organisa- 
tion of the army," and since the King of Prussia and the 
Sovereigns of South Germany had ordered the mobilisation 
of their armies. Six months! But what a six months of 
bloodshed and fury, of humiliation and defeat. 

The Emperor left St. Cloud for the seat of war on July 
28th, and went straight to Metz, where a Council of War 
was held on August 4, with Marshals Macmahon and 
Bazaine in attendance. That very day the Crown Prince 
of Prussia fell upon a portion of Macmahon's army corps at 
Weissenburg, and all but destroyed it, killing its general, 
Abel Douay, and taking 800 prisoners. The next day a 
similar fate overtook another corps, commanded by Mac- 
would then have pushed on to encounter the Prussians. But the army at 
Metz, instead of 150,000 men, only mustered 100,000; that of Strassburg only 
40,000 instead of 100,000; whilst the corps of Marshal Canrobert had stiE 
one division at Paris, and another at Soissons; his artillery as well as his 
cavalry were not ready. Further no army corps was even yet completely 
furnished with the equipments necessary for taking the field. — Campagne de 
1870; des Causes qui ont amene la Capitulation de Sedan. Par un Ofiicier 
attache k I'Etat Major-G6n6ral. Bruxelles. 



124 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1870- 

mahon himself on the hills above Worth, when 6000 men 
were killed or taken prisoner, and no less than thirty pieces 
of artillery with six mitrailleuses were captured. Whilst 
the latter engagement was actually in progress General 
Froissard's army corps, which was holding the heights above 
Saarbruck, was driven back in confusion and with great 
loss upon Metz. 

The news of these events fell upon the ears of startled 
Europe on August 8. A fiasco, so hiu-ried and hopeless, 
had not been contemplated. At first a false report had 
reached Paris of a grand victory won by Macmahon, who 
was supposed to have captured the Crown Prince of Prussia 
with all his army. The enthusiastic excitement had been 
unbounded. Gradually the truth was borne in upon the 
unhappy people, and a hopeless reaction was the natural 
result. Napoleon's apologetic telegrams from Metz did not 
cheer his subjects ; even the fourth of a series of five contain- 
ing these words, Tout pent se retablir, brought little hope to 
their hearts, for it was impossible not to be aware of the fact 
that, although the war was but three weeks old, the Prus- 
sian invasion of France was going successfully and steadily 
forward. 

But France was still an Empire, and, on the morning of 
August 7, the Empress-Regent presided over a ministerial 
council at 5 o'clock in the morning, and convoked the cham- 
bers, who met on the 9th, when the OUivier Ministry resigned. 
The department of the Seine was declared in a state of siege, 
and a permanent council of the Ministry was established at 
the Tuileries. The Ollivier Ministry was replaced by one 
under Count Palikao. 

It was still possible for news of the French defeats at the 
seat of war to reach the capital. Bazaine's imsuccessful 
movement of retreat from Metz to Verdun on August 15, 
followed by the bloody battle of Gravelotte, resulting in his 
enforced retirement into the entrenched camp of Metz, 
spread further consternation among the Imperial Ministers 



i87i] THE BESIEGED RESIDENT 125 

at home, and preparations for a siege began in earnest. 
General Trochu was appointed Commander-in-Chief of all 
the forces in Paris on August 17. 

Sedan was fought on the first of September, and on the 
second, the Emperor of the French sent his sword to the 
King of Prussia, who thereupon appointed him a residence 
as a prisoner of war. Two days later the advance guard of 
the Prussian army at Sedan set out for Paris. 

It is to the columns of the Daily News,^ that we must 
tiim for the most authentic account of the way in which 
Paris took the news of Sedan. Although Labouchere was 
not yet the official correspondent from Paris, he nevertheless 
sent letters to Fleet Street dealing with matters connected 
with the crisis, which were published above the signature of 
a "Parisian Resident." 

"The news of the Emperor's capture," he writes on 
September 4, "reached the foreign embassies here at ten 
yesterday morning. At about 8 o'clock it began to be 
rumoured that the Emperor and Macmahon's army had 
surrendered. I saw a crowd of about 2000 men going down 
the Boulevard, and shouting 'La decheance/ I took the 
arm of a patriot, and we all went together to the Louvre to 
interview General Trochu. He came out after we had 
shouted for him about half-an-hour, and a deputation had 
gone in to him. There was a dead silence as soon as he 
appeared, so what he said could be distinctly heard. He told 
us that the news of the capture of the Emperor was true, 
and that as for arms he could not give more than he had, 
and he regretted to say that the millions on paper were not 
forthcoming." 

In the course of the next twenty-four hours a bloodless 
revolution was accomplished in Paris. On Sunday after- 
noon Labouchere got into a carriage and drove about the 
city, noting everything he saw. "The weather was beau- 

^ Quotations in this chapter not otherwise specified have been taken from 
the columns of the Daily News, August, 1870- January, 1871. 



126 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1870- 

tiful," he wrote; "it was one of the most glorious early- 
September days ever seen. I drove slowly along the quay 
parallel with the Orangerie of the Tuileries before the Palace. 
The Tuileries gardens were full of people. I learned that, 
in the morning, orders had been given to close the gates, 
but that, half-an-hour before I passed, the people had forced 
them open, and that neither the troops nor the people made 
any resistance. My coachman, who, I dare say, was an 
Imperialist yesterday, but was a very strong Republican 
to-day, pointed out to me several groups of people bearing 
red flags. I told him that the tricolour, betokening the 
presence of the Empress, still floated from the central tower 
of the Tuileries. While I was speaking, and at exactly 
twenty minutes past three, I saw that flag taken down. 
That is an event in a man's life not to be forgotten. Cross- 
ing over the Pont de Solferino to the Quai d'Orsay, I wit- 
nessed an extraordinary sight indeed. From the windows 
of those great barracks, formerly peopled with troops, every 
man of whom was supposed to be ready to die for his Emperor, 
I saw soldiers smiling, waving handkerchiefs, and responding 
to the cries of ' Vive la Repuhlique. ' Nay, strangers fell on 
each other's necks and kissed each other with 'effusion.' 
In the neighbourhood of the Pont Neuf , I saw people on the 
tops of ladders busily pulling down the Emperor's bust, 
which the late loyalty of the people had induced them to 
stick about in all possible and impossible places. I saw the 
busts carried in mock procession to the parapets of the Pont 
Neuf and thrown into the Seine, clapping of hands and hearty 
laughter greeting the splash which the graven image of the 
mighty monarch made in the water. I went as far as the 
Hotel de Ville, and found it in possession of his Majesty the 
Sovereign People. Blouses were in every one of M. Hauss- 
mann's balconies. How they got there I do not know. I 
presume that M. Chevreau did not invite them. But they 
got in somehow without violence. The great square in 
front of the H6tel de Ville was full of the National Guards, 



n 



^ 



:-^^^ 




;-^^ 14^ 





i87i] THE BESIEGED RESmENT 127 

most of them without uniform. They carried the butts of 
their muskets in the air, in token that they were fraternising 
with the people. The most perfect good humour prevailed. 
Portraits of the Emperor and Empress, which many of your 
readers must have seen in the Hotel de Ville ballrooms, 
were thrown out of the window and the people trod and 
danced on the canvas. On leaving the Hotel de Ville I 
saw, in the Avenue Victoria, M. Henri Rochefort, ^ let out of 
prison as a logical sequence of events but half-an-hour 
before. He was on a triumphal car, and wore a scarlet 
scarf. He was escorted by an immense mob, crying, * Vive 
Rochefort ! ' He looked in far better health than I expected 
to see him after his long imprisonment, and his countenance 
beamed with delight. He had seen his desire on his enemy." 

At four o'clock on the same day the R,epublic was pro- 
claimed at the H6tel de Ville, with a provisional Government 
composed of the following members : MM. Gambetta, Jules 
Favre, Pelletan, Rochefort, Jules Ferry, Jules Simon, and 
Ernest Picard. Keratry was appointed Prefect of the Police 
and Arago the Mayor of Paris. 

Meanwhile the Prussians came nearer and nearer. On 
the loth, they entered Laon, and General Hame, who was 
in command, surrendered the citadel in order to save the 
city. On that day the Republican Government issued an 
order to all owners of provisions and forage in the neighbour- 
hood to move their goods into the capital. On the i8th 
the Crown Prince and the third army were at Chaumes, and 
two days later the long march of the Prussians was ended. 
The Crown Prince took up his headquarters at Versailles. 
The Daily News correspondent, Archibald Forbes, who had 
accompanied the third army from Worth to Sedan, and from 
Sedan to Paris, informed Fleet Street that: "The fortune 
of war has brought the Prussians to the Hampton Court 
of the French capital — has placed them at the very gates of 

' He had been undergoing a term of imprisonment for certain articles 
written in the Marseillaise. 



128 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1870- 

Paris. I need say no further word to make the situation 
more striking. Here are the dark blue uniforms and the 
spiked helmets in the stately avenues of Versailles. The 
barracks of the Imperial Guard give ample quarters to King 
William's soldiery, and there have been found immense 
stores of hay and oats which will make the Prussian horses 
fat, if only rest enough be given them for feeding." 

From that day until the end of the siege no regular mail 
went out of Paris. Balloons and pigeons carried the news 
of the imprisoned inhabitants into the provinces and beyond 
the seas. Sometimes a letter would be successfully fixed 
between the double soles of a crafty man's boots, ^ who would, 
on some pretext or another, succeed in making his way 
through the Prussian lines, or a note would be rolled up 
into a ball and be concealed in a pot of pomade and so 
proceed in unctuous quiet on its way out of the prison into 
the open. Henry Labouchere, some twenty-five years later, 
described how he managed to get his letters to the Daily 
News:^ 

"More of my letters reached their destination, I believe, 
than those of other correspondents. The reason was this. 
The correspondents waited on Jules Favre, and asked him 
to afford them facilities for sending their letters. He kindly 
said that he would, and told us that whenever a balloon 
started we might give them, made up in a parcel, to the man 
in charge, who would make it his business to transmit them 

' I quote a few lines — the only legible ones — from a letter, addressed to 
his mother, which Labouchere sent out of Paris, fastened between the double 
sole of a man's boot. It looks as if the bearer must have waded through 
water, and the marks of the cobbler's nails are visible all over it. " November 
6, 1870. This goes out in a citizen's boot. If he is caught, he will be shot, 
which is his affair — only you will not get it. The position is utterly hopeless. 
We shall be bombarded in a week. This hotel has two hundred wounded in 
it. I got into the H6tel de Ville on Monday with the mob. Such a scene. 
I have got a pass from General Vinoy, so I get a good view of all the military 
operations. ... I do not know if my letters to the D. N. arrive. ..." 

' J. M'Carthy and Sir J. Robinson, The Daily News Jubilee. A Retrospect 
ef Fifty Years of the Queen's Reign . 



i87i] THE BESIEGED RESIDENT 129 

to their destination so soon as the balloon touched land 
outside. There was a complacent smile on his countenance 
when we gratefully accepted this offer that led me to suspect 
that, whatever might happen to the letters, they were not 
likely to reach the newspaper offices to which they were 
addressed, unless they lauded everything. So, instead of 
falling a victim to this confidence trick, I placed my letters 
under cover to a friend in London, and put them into a post- 
box, calculating that, as each balloon took out about twenty 
thousand letters, those posted in the ordinary way woiild 
not be opened." 

The letters, posted as Labouchere described above, were 
written on tissue paper and addressed to Miss Henrietta 
Hodson. She, immediately on receipt of the manuscript, 
carried it to Fleet Street, where it was rightly considered 
copy of the very first order. 

Labouchere, as soon as the siege had really begun, tried 
in vain to induce General Trochu to allow him to accompany 
him on his rides to the ramparts of the city, pointing out 
that the newspaper correspondents were always allowed to 
accompany the Prussian staffs. Trochu would not hear of 
the scheme, and explained that he himself had been within 
an inch of being shot because he had had the impudence to 
say that he was the Governor of Paris. 

"From Trochu," writes Labouchere, on September 25, 
"I went to pay a few calls. I found every one engaged in 
measuring the distance from the Prussian batteries to his 
particular house. One friend I found seated in a cellar with 
a quantity of mattresses over it, to make it bomb-proof. 
He emerged from his subterraneous Patmos to talk to me, 
ordered his servant to pile on a few more mattresses, and then 
retreated. Anything so dull as existence here it is difficult 
to imagine. Before the day is out one gets sick and tired 
of the one single topic of conversation. We are like the 
people at Cremome waiting for the fireworks to begin; and 
I really do believe that if this continues much longer, the 



130 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1870- 

most cowardly will welcome the bombs as a relief from the 
oppressive ennui.'" 

A letter to his mother, ^ dated September 26, gives the 
following account of his life in Paris: "I wrote a day or two 
ago by balloon, but probably my letter is in the moon. A 
man is going to try and get through the lines with this, and 
a letter to the Daily News. We are all right here. The 
Prussians fire at the forts, but as yet they have not bom- 
barded the town. Provisions are already very dear. It is 
rather dull — in fact a little bombarding would be a relief to 
our ennui. Everybody is swaggering about in tmiform. 
I went round the inner barricades a day or two ago with the 
citizen Rochefort." 

A few days later he wrote to the Daily News: "The 
presence of the Prussians at the gates, and the sound of the 
cannon, have at last sobered this frivolous people. French- 
men indeed cannot live without exaggeration, and for the 
last twenty-four hours they have taken to walking about as 
if they were guests at their own funerals. It is hardly in 
their line to play the jus turn et tenacem of Horace. Always 
acting, they are now acting the part of Spartans. It is 
somewhat amusing to see the stern gloom on the face of 
patriots one meets, who were singing and shouting a few 
days ago — more particularly as it is by no means difficult 
to distinguish beneath this outward gloom a certain keen 
relish, founded upon the feeling that the part is being well 
played." 

On the evening of the same day Labouchere took his 
strolls abroad, and came to the Avenue de L'Imperatrice, 
where he found a large crowd gazing upon the Fort of Mont 
Valerien. This fort, from being the strongest for defence, 
was particularly beloved by the Parisians. " They love it 
as a sailor loves his ship," writes Labouchere. He witnessed 
the following incident : " If I were near enough," said a young 

^ Mrs. Labouchere had been a widow since 1863, and was now living at 
Oakdene, near Dorking. 



i87i] THE BESIEGED RESIDENT 131 

girl, "I would kiss it." "Let me carry your kiss to it," 
responded a Mobile, and the pair embraced, amid the cheers 
of the people around them. 

The question of domestic economy had not yet become 
a pressing one, as far as the "besieged resident" was con- 
cerned. He was lodged au guatrieme at the Grand Hotel, 
and wrote during the first week of the siege : " I presume if the 
siege lasts long enough, dogs, rats, and cats will be tariffed. 
I have got a thousand francs with me. It is impossible to 
draw upon England; consequently, I see a moment coming 
when, unless rats are reasonable, I shall not be able to afford 
myself the luxury of one oftener than once a week." And a 
fortnight later he writes: "My landlord presents me every 
week with my bill. The ceremony seems to please him, 
and does me no harm. I have pasted upon my mantelpiece 
the decree of the Government adjourning payment of rent, 
and the right to read and re-read this document is all that 
he will get from me until the end of the siege. Yesterday 
I ordered myself a warm suit of clothes ; I chose a tailor with 
a German name, so I feel convinced he will not venture to 
ask for payment under the present circumstances, and if he 
does he will not get it. If my funds run out before the siege 
is over, I shall have at least the pleasure to think that this 
has not been caused by improvidence." 

He wrote to his mother on October 10, as follows: "I 
send this by balloon. The smaller the letter, the more 
chance it has to go. We are all thriving in here, though we 
have heard absolutely nothing from the outside world for a 
fortnight. I don't know if my letters to the Daily News 
arrive. Yesterday, I could only get sheeps' trotters and 
pickled cauliflower for dinner. We boast awfully of what 
we are going to do, but, as yet, all our sorties have been 
driven back, and our forts stun our ears by firing upon stray 
rabbits and Uhlans. If ever my letters to the Daily News 
do not arrive and come back here, I shall be shot, but I 
don't think that they will. I am convinced that the pro- 



132 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1870- 

visions will soon give out. We go about saying that we 
cannot be beaten, because we have made a 'pact with 
death.'" 

And again on the 21st : " We are getting on very well here. 
Nothing has come in since the commencement of the siege, 
and no one can get out. They say there are provisions to 
last until February, so we shall have a dose of our own society. 
About one sixth of the town is now commanded by the 
Prussian batteries, but we don't know whether they will 
fire or not. I am living very well on horse and cat — the 
latter excellent — like rabbit, only better. Our people brag 
very much, but do little more. The Ultras are going ahead 
— they have taken now to denouncing crucifixes, which they 
call ridiculous nudities — a mayor has had them all removed — 
he then announced that no marriages were to take place in 
his arrondissement — marriage being an insult upon honour- 
able citizens who did not approve of this relic of superstition. 
This was a little too much, so he was removed, and we are 
now free to marry or not according to our tastes. I am 
the intimate friend of Louis Blanc, so no one touches me." 

One of the most curious things about these letters by 
balloon was the irregularity in their delivery. It was not 
merely that one balloon reached friendly or neutral territory 
in safety, while another did not. Of half a dozen letters 
coming by the same balloon, two would be delivered, say, 
on the 6th of the month, one on the loth, two on the 15th, 
and the last on the 20th. This greatly puzzled the recipients 
at the time. The explanation turned out to be that the 
bag containing the first letter had been sent off immediately 
the aeronaut descended, whereas the others underwent a 
variety of adventures. Frequently a balloon fell at or 
near a place of German occupation. The aeronaut would 
come down at a run, hurry off with one bag, and give the 
others to friendly peasants, who secreted them imtil an 
opportimity occurred for getting them safely to the nearest 
post-town. Usually the letters came in beautiful order, 



i87i] THE BESIEGED RESIDENT 133 

without a speck upon them to show an unusual mode of 
transit. One batch, however, had to be fished out of the 
sea, off the Cornish coast. In one case a letter was delivered 
in wonderfully quick time. Dispatched from Paris on a 
Monday night, it was delivered in London on the following 
evening. ^ 

Apparently his "made in Germany" suit did not wear 
as well as might have been expected, for it was only December 
when he described his wardrobe as follows: 

"My pea-jacket is torn and threadbare, iny trousers are 
frayed at the bottom, and of many colours — like Joseph's 
coat. As for my linen, I will only say that the washer- 
women have struck work, as they have no fuel. I believe 
my shirt was once white, but I am not sure. I invested a 
few weeks ago in a pair of cheap boots. They are my tor- 
ment. They have split in various places, and I wear a pair 
of gaiters — purple, like those of a respectable ecclesiastic — • 
to cover the rents. I bought them on the Boulevard, and 
at the same stall I bought a bright blue handkerchief which 
was going cheap; this I wear round my neck. My upper 
man resembles that of a dog-stealer, my lower man that of a 
bishop. My buttons are turning my hair grey. When I 
had more than one change of raiment these appendages 
remained in their places, now they drop off as though I were 
a moulting fowl. I have to pin myself together elaborately, 
and whenever I want to get anything out of my pocket, I 
have cautiously to unpin myself, with the dread of falling 
to pieces before my eyes." 

In another place Labouchere describes his head-dress, 
which was quite eccentric enough to fit in with the rest of his 
travesty: "I have bought myself a sugar-loaf hat of the 
first Republic, and am consequently regarded with deference. 
' The style is the man, ' said Buffon ; had he lived here now 
he would rather have said, ' The hat is the man. ' An English 
doctor who goes about in a regulation chimney-pot has 

^ Robinson. Fifty Years of Fleet Street. 



134 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1870- 

already been arrested twenty-seven times. I, thanks to my 
revolutionary hat, have not been arrested once. I have 
only to glance from under its brim at any one for him to 
quail." 

The extracts which Labouchere copied from the news- 
papers for the benefit of his London readers are extremely 
amusing, and give, as no other method of narration could 
have done, a good idea of the spirit which the leaders of the 
people thought fit to try and promulgate amongst the Pa- 
risians. One morning, for instance, he learned that " Moltke 
is dead, that the Crown Prince is dying of a fever, that 
Bismarck is anxious to negotiate but is prevented by the 
obstinacy of the King, that three hundred Prussians from 
the Polish provinces have come over to our side, that the 
Bavarian and Wiirtemberg troops are in a state of incipient 
rebellion. From the fact that the Prussian outposts have 
withdrawn to a greater distance from the forts, it is probable 
that they despair of success, and in a few days will raise the 
siege. Most of the newspapers make merry over the faults 
in grammar in a letter which has been discovered from the 
Empress to the Emperor, although I doubt whether there 
is one Frenchman in the world who could write Spanish as 
well as the Empress does French." 

The New Year's address to the Prussians, published in 
the Gaulois, is a masterpiece of journalistic invective, and 
the relish with which the besieged resident copied it for the 
benefit of his London readers may well be imagined : 

"You Prussian beggars, you Prussian scoundrels, you 
bandits and you Vandals, you have taken everything from 
us; you have ruined us; you are starving us; you are bom- 
barding us; and we have a right to hate you with a royal 
hatred. Well, perhaps one day we might have forgiven you 
your rapine and your murders; our towns that you have 
sacked; your heavy yokes; your infamous treasons. The 
French race is so light of heart, so kindly, that we might 
perhaps in time have forgotten our resentments. What we 



1871I THE BESIEGED RESIDENT 135 

never shall forget will be this New Year's Day, which we 
have been forced to pass without news from our families. 
You, at least, have had letters from your Gretcher s, astound- 
ing letters, very likely, in which the melancholy blondes 
with blue eyes make a wonderful literary salad, composed 
of sour kraut, berlin wool, forget-me-nots, pillage, bombard- 
ment, pure love, and transcendental philosophy. But you 
like all this just as you like jam with your mutton. You 
have what pleases you. Your ugly faces receive kisses by 
the post. But you kill our pigeons, you intercept our letters, 
you shoot at our balloons with your absurd fusils de rempart, 
and you burst out into a heavy German grin when you get 
hold of one of our bags, which are carrying to those we love 
our vows, our hopes, our remembrances, our regrets, our 
hearts." And so on. 

Labouchere had not a high opinion of French journalism 
during the investment. *'A French journaHst," he says, 
"even when he is not obliged to do so, generally invents his 
facts, and then reasons upon them with wonderful ingenuity. 
One would think that just at present a Parisian would do 
well to keep his breath to cool his own porridge. Such, 
however, is not his opinion. He thinks that he has a mission 
to guide and instruct the world, and this mission he man- 
fully fulfils in defiance of Prussians and Prussian cannons. 
It is true, that he knows rather less of foreign countries than 
an intelligent Japanese Daimio may be supposed to know of 
Tipperary, but, by some curious law of nature, the less he 
knows of a subject, the more strongly does he feel impelled 
to write about it. I read a very clever article this morning 
pointing out that if we are not on our guard, our Empire in 
India will come to an end by a Russian fleet attacking it 
from the Caspian Sea. When one thinks how very easy it 
would have been for the author not to have written about 
the Caspian Sea, one is at once surprised and grateful to 
him for having called our attention to the danger which 
menaces us in that quarter of the globe." 



136 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1870- 

His estimate of General Trochu was, on the whole, the 
fairest that was made at the period. During the earliest 
days of the siege it was supposed that Trochu had a plan, 
and, on being questioned about it, he admitted that he had. 
He went on to say that he guaranteed its success, but that 
he should reveal it to no one, until the right moment — in 
fact, he had deposited it for safety with his notary, Maitre 
Duclos, who, in the event of his being killed, would produce 
it. As time wore on and no plan was forthcoming from the 
General, it became very evident that it could have been 
nothing more elaborate than a determination to capitulate 
as soon as Paris was starved out. When the siege was nearly 
five weeks old Labouchere wrote: 

"Every day this siege lasts, convinces me that Gen. 
Trochu is not the right man in the right place. He writes 
long-winded letters, utters Spartan aphorisms, and complains 
of his colleagues, his generals, and his troops. The confidence 
which is felt in him is rapidly diminishing. He is a good, 
respectable man, without a grain of genius, or of that fierce, 
indomitable energy which sometimes replaces it. He would 
make a good minister of war in quiet times, but he is about 
as fit to command in the present emergency as Mr. Card well "^ 
would be. His two principal military subordinates, Vinoy 
and Ducrot, are excellent Generals of division, but nothing 
more. As for his civilian colleagues they are one and all 
hardly more practical than Professor Fawcett. Each has 
some crotchet of his own, each likes to dogmatise and to 
speechify, and each considers the others to be idiots, and has 
a small following of his own, which regards him as a species 
of divinity. They are philosophers, orators, and legists, 
but they are neither practical men nor statesmen." And 
when the siege was over he summed up the case for Trochu 
thus: "What will be the verdict of history on the defence? 
Who knows! On the one hand, the Parisians have kept a 
powerful army at bay for longer than was expected; on the 

' Secretary of War in Mr. Gladstone's first Ministry. 



i87i] THE BESIEGED RESIDENT 137 

other hand, every sortie that they have made has been 
unsuccessful — every attempt to arrest the approach of the 
besiegers has failed. Passively and inertly they have al- 
lowed their store of provisions to grow less and less, until 
they have been forced to capitulate, without their defences 
having been stormed, or the cannon silenced. The General 
complains of his soldiers, the soldiers complain of their 
General; and on both sides there is cause of complaint. 
Trochu is not a Todleben. His best friends describe him 
as a weak sort of military Hamlet, wise of speech, but weak 
and hesitating in action — making plans and then criticising 
them, instead of accomplishing them. As a commander 
his task was a difficult one ; when the siege commenced he 
had no army; when the army was formed it was encom- 
passed by earthworks and redoubts so strong that even 
better soldiers would have failed to carry them. As a states- 
man, he never was master of the situation. He followed 
rather than led public opinion. Success is the criterion 
of ability in this country, and poor Trochu is as politically 
dead as though he never had lived." 

As time wore on the question of meals in the besieged 
city naturally became one of absorbing moment. "I went," 
says Labouchere, on December 21, "to see what was going 
on in the house of a friend of mine, in the Avenue de L'lm- 
peratrice, who has left Paris. The servant who was in 
charge told me that up there they had not been able to 
obtain bread for three days, and that the last time he had 
presented his ticket, he had been given about half an inch 
of cheese. 'How do you live then?' I asked. After look- 
ing mysteriously round to see that no one was watching us, 
he took me down into the cellar, and pointed to some meat 
in a barrel. ' It is half a horse, ' he said, in the tone of a man 
who is showing some one the corpse of his murdered victim. 
'A neighbouring coachman killed him, and we salted him 
down, and divided him. ' Then he opened a closet in which 
sat a huge cat. 'I am fattening her up for Christmas day; 



138 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1870- 

we mean to serve her up, surrounded with mice like sausages,' 
he observed," On January 6 Labouchere notes: "Yester- 
day I had a slice of Pollux for dinner. Pollux and his 
brother Castor are two elephants, which have been killed. 
It was tough, coarse, and oily, and I do not recommend 
English families to eat elephant as long as they can get beef 
or mutton. Many of the restaurants are closed, owing to 
want of fuel. They are recommended to use lamps; but 
although French cooks can do wonders with very poor 
materials, when they are called upon to cook an elephant 
with a spirit lamp the thing is almost beyond their ingenuity. 
Castor and Pollux's trunks sold for forty-five francs a pound ; 
the other parts of the interesting twins fetched about ten 
francs a pound." 

He wrote to his mother on January 8^: "Here we still 
are. For the last few days the Prussians have taken to 
throwing shells into the town, which makes things more 
lively. I do not think it can last much longer. It is awfully 
cold, for all the wood is freshly cut and will not bum. The 
washerwomen have struck as they have no fuel, so we all 
wear very dirty shirts. I am in a great fright of my money 
giving out, as none is to be got here. My dress is seedy — 
in fact falling to pieces. I think I have eaten now of every 
animal which Noah had in his ark.^ Since the bombard- 
ment the cannon makes a great noise. All night it is as if 
doors were slamming. Outside the walls it is rather pretty 
to see the batteries exchanging shots. We have heard 
nothing from England since September, except from scraps 
of paper picked out of dead Prussians' pockets." Labou- 
chere was always ready to recall to his memory for conver- 
sational purposes the strange food he ate during the siege 

^ This letter did not reach London, E. C, from whence it was posted to 
Dorking, until Jan. 19. 

' Captain Bingham notes in his diary for Dec. 4 that Henry Labouchere, 
Frank Lawley, Lewis Wingfield, and Quested Lynch dined with him, and that 
they partook of moufflon, a kind of wild sheep which inhabits Corsica. — Recol- 
lections of Paris, Capt. Hon. D. Bingham. 



i87i] THE BESIEGED RESmENT 139 

of Paris. Donkey apparently was his favourite dish. This 
is what he said on the subject : 

"A donkey is infinitely better eating than beef or mutton, 
indeed I do not know any meat which is better. This was 
so soon discovered by the French, during the siege of Paris, 
that donkey meat was about five times the price of horse 
meat. At Voisin's there was almost every day a joint of 
cold donkey for breakfast, and it was greatly preferred to 
anything else. Let any one who doubts the excellence of 
cold donkey slay one of these weak-minded animals, cook 
him, and eat him." Rats he did not appreciate so much: 
"The objection to them is that when cooked their flesh is 
gritty. This objection is, however, somewhat Epicurean, 
for, except for this grittiness, they are a wholesome and 
excellent article of food. I am surprised that there is not 
a society for the promotion of eating rats. Why should not 
prisoners be fed with these nourishing and prolific little 
animals?" 

His account of how he got a leg of mutton into Paris 
after the capitulation, when, in spite of the siege being raised, 
the difficulties of procuring food were almost as insurmount- 
able as before, was one of his most amusing contes. He 
rode out to Versailles,^ where he procured the longed-for 
joint, but, when he started on his return journey, a sen- 
tinel of Versailles refused to allow the meat to leave the 
town, and actually took it away from him. Desperately 
he decided to appeal to the better side of the Prussian's 
nature, and explained to him that he was in love, indeed, 
that to love was the fate of all mortals. The warrior sighed 
and pensively assented: Labouchere judged that he was 
most likely thinking of his distant Gretchen, and shame- 
lessly followed up his advantage: "My lady love is in Paris," 

' "As soon as the armistice was signed, several of the English correspondents 
managed to get to Versailles. The first thing that Labouchere did on arriving 
there was to plunge his head into a pail of milk, and he was with difficulty 
weaned." — Recollections of Paris, Capt. Hon. D. Bingham. 



140 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1870- 

he proceeded pathetically, " long have I sighed in vain. I 
am taking her now a leg of mutton — on this leg hangs all 
my hope of bliss — if I present myself to her with this token 
of my devotion she may yield to my suit. Oh, full of feeling, 
beloved of beauteous women, German warrior, can you 
refuse me?" Of course the sentinel yielded, and the cor- 
respondent, who, needless to say, had no lady love in the 
capital, bore it off in triumph. He enjoyed it for dinner 
that evening in company with Mr. Frank Lawley and Mr. 
Denis Bingham, in whose journal for that day occurs the 
following entry: 

"On their return from Versailles together, Labouchere 
and Lawley brought me a leg of mutton. And what a 
treat it was for our small household and dear neighbours! 
And an Italian lady brought us a large loaf of white bread, 
and we feasted and were merry, and measured our girths, 
and promised ourselves that we would soon get into condi- 
tion again, for we were lamentably pulled down."^ 

On February 10, Labouchere took his departure from 
Paris, feeling, as he said, much as Daniel must have done 
on emerging from the den of lions. Baron Rothschild pro- 
cured for him a pass which enabled him to take the Amiens 
train at the goods station within the walls of the city, instead 
of driving, as those who were less fortunate were obliged to 
do, to Gonesse. The train was drawn up before a shed in 
the midst of oceans of mud. It consisted of one passenger 
carriage, and of a long series of empty bullock vans. He 
entered one of the latter as the passenger van was already 
crowded. At Breteuil the train waited for above an hour, 
and Labouchere, impatient of the delay, perceiving a Prus- 
sian train puffing up, managed to induce an official to allow 
him to get into the luggage van, by which means he was able 
to proceed on his way to the destination. "Having started 
from Paris as a bullock, I reached Amiens at twelve o'clock 
as a carpet-bag," was the way he described his journey. 

^ Capt. Hon. D. Bingham. Recollections of Paris. 



i87i] THE BESIEGED RESIDENT 141 

At Abbeville the train passed out of the Prussian lines 
into the French, and Calais was reached at 7 p.m. "Right 
glad" was the Paris correspondent, to use his own words, 
to "eat a Calais supper and to sleep on a Calais bed."^ 

In his last letter to the Daily News during the war, Mr. 
Labouchere lodged one other Parthian shot in the city 
whose hospitality he had been enjoying: "I took my depar- 
ture from Paris," he wrote, "leaving without any very 
poignant regret, its inhabitants wending their way to the 
electoral 'urns,' the many revolving in their minds how 
France and Paris are to manage to pay the little bill which 
their creditor outside is making up against them; the few — 
the very few — determined to die rather than yield, sitting 
in the cafes on the boulevard, which is to be, I presume, 
their last ditch." 

In one of his earliest numbers of Truth, Mr. Labouchere 
gave a characteristic accoimt of how he behaved under fire. 
It is worth quoting as illustrative of the naive frankness with 
which he always described those instinctive little actions of 
human nature which more sophisticated persons usually 
pretend never occur. "I was at some of the engagements 
during the Franco-Prussian War. The first time that I 
was under fire, I felt that every shell whizzing through the 
air would infallibly blow me up. Being a non-combatant, 
in an unconcerned sort of way, as if I had business to attend 
to elsewhere, I effected a strategical movement to the rear. 
But, as no shell had blown me up, I came to the conclusion 
that no shell would blow me up, and accepted afterwards 
as a natural state of things which did not concern me, the 
fact that these missiles occasionally blew up other people." 

' The following gentlemen of the press were in Paris during the siege: 
Charles Austen of the Times, Frank Lawley of the Daily Telegraph, Henry 
Labouchere of the Daily News, Thomas Gibson Bowles of the Morning Post, 
J. Augustus O'Shea of the Standard, Capt, Bingham, who sent letters to the 
Pall Mall Gazette, and Mr. Dallas, who wrote both for the Times and the 
Daily News. 



CHAPTER VII 
LABOUCHERE AND BRADLAUGH 

(1880-1881) 

AT the general election of 1880, Mr. Labouchere found in 
the electors of Northampton a constituency which was 
to remain faithful to him throughout his political career. 
He was described in the local press as the "nominee of the 
moderate Liberals," though, as he explained in the columns 
of Truth, a moderate Liberal at Northampton was a Radical 
anywhere else. The "Radical" candidate was that upright 
and greatly persecuted man, Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, who 
merited far more than Mr. Labouchere the title of the "reli- 
gious member for Northampton." ^ It has often been pointed 
out that the difference between religious and irreligious 
people does not lie so much in opinion as in temperament. 
Labouchere had an essentially irreligious nature, he was a 
born impie, as the French say : Mr. Bradlaugh had the soul 
of a Covenanter. As far as speculative religious opinions 
were concerned, they practically coincided, while, in the 
general lines of political opinion, they were quite at one. 
Both were strong Radicals and strong anti-socialists. 

Northampton was in 1880 one of the most promising 
Radical constituencies.^ The Radical element had for 

^ The late Lord Randolph Churchill once referred in the House of Commons 
to Mr. Labouchere (greatly to his delight) by this title. 

' I have followed in this chapter the admirable account of Bradlaugh 's 
parliamentary struggle given by Mr. J. M. Robertson, M.P., in the second 
part of Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner's Charles Bradlaugh: Life and Work. 

142 



i88o-'8i] LABOUCHERE AND BRADLAUGH 143 

many years been very numerous among the population, 
but unfortunately the majority of the workers had no vote. 
The Household Suffrage Act of 1868 remedied this state of 
things to some extent. The work of the Freehold Land 
Society developed the scope of the remedy. This most 
practical expression of democratic ideals, by making free- 
holders of workmen, raised the numbers of the electorate 
from 6829 in 1874 to 8189 in 1880; of these 2500 had never 
voted before, and to a man were Radicals. When Mr. Labou- 
chere was introduced as Liberal candidate he at once decided 
to make common cause with Mr. Bradlaugh, and his mani- 
festo to the electors, published on March 27, was craftily 
worded so as to appeal with simple directness to those 
modern sons of St. Crispin, "the communistic cobblers of 
Northampton." It ran as follows: "Having already sat 
in Parliament as a Liberal member for Middlesex, it is 
needless for me to say that I am an opponent of the Imperial- 
ism which, under the leadership of the Earl of Beaconsfield, 
has become the policy of the Conservative Government. 
This new-fangled poHtical creed consists in swagger abroad 
and inaction at home. Its results are that we have made 
ourselves the patrons of one of the vilest governments that 
ever burdened the earth ; that we have joined with the op- 
pressors against the oppressed; that we have acquired a 
pestiferous and less than worthless land in the Mediterra- 
nean; that we have annexed the territory of some harmless 
Dutch republicans against their will; that we have expended 
above six millions in catching a savage, who had as much 
right to his freedom as we have, and that we have butchered 
Afghans for the crime of defending their country against 
an unjust invasion. . . . For my part, I am anxious to see 
Parliament again controlling the executive, and a majority 
of members returned who will radically revise the laws 
regarding land, so as to encourage its tenure by the many 
instead of its absorption by the few, who will render farmers 
independent of the caprices of the landlords, who will eman- 



144 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1880- 

cipate the agricultural labourers by securing to them their 
natural right to vote." He went on to express in strong 
terms his desire for the disestablishment and disendowment 
of the Church of England. ^ In a speech which he made on 
the same day as the publication of his manifesto, in the 
Wesleyan Chapel, in the Wellingborough Road, he said that 
he had been asked a little while ago whether he was a mem- 
ber of the Church of England, and he had replied that he had 
been brought up in the Church of England, and, if he had 
to register his religion, he should register it as a member of 
the Church of England. But, if he had been asked what his 
religion was, he should have said the question was one be- 
tween his God and his conscience, and it was no business of 
any one's in Northampton, because he stood upon the distinct 
issue that, whatever the religious opinions of a candidate 
might be, they were sending him to Parliament to perform 
certain political duties, and if his political views were, in 
accordance with theirs, religion had nothing to do with it.* 
The borough had previously returned two Tory members, 
Mr. Phipps, a local brewer, and Mr. Merewether, a lawyer. 
They were not themselves very formidable opponents to the 
Radical joint candidature. The clergy and the press urged 
the theological motive, as well as his greatly misunderstood 
views on Malthusianism against Bradlaugh. On the Sunday 
before the election the Vicar of St. Giles intimated that "to 
those noble men who loved Christ more than party, Jesus 
would say, 'Well done.'" But, in spite of nearly 2000 years 
of Christianity, heaven has not yet learned to bless the 
weaker cause, and on the election day, the figures stood — 
Labouchere (L.), 4518, Bradlaugh (R.), 3827, Phipps (C), 
3125, Merewether (C), 2826. When the news of the poll was 
brought to Mr. Labouchere, who was smoking his cigarette 
in the coffee room of the hotel where he was staying, his only 
comment was a quiet chuckle, and the remark, ** Oh, they 've 
swallowed Bradlaugh, after all, have they?" 

' Northampton Mercury, March 27, 1880. 'Ibid. 



i88i] LABOUCHERE AND BRADLAUGH 145 

Great was the fury in the Conservative camp. "The 
bellowing blasphemer of Northampton," as Mr. Bradlaugh 
was amiably called by the Sheffield Telegraph, had to meet 
the full blast of popular prejudice, which was exploited to 
the utmost by his political opponents. 

The Tories were soon to have more than popular pre- 
judice to exploit. On May 3, Mr. Eradlaugh, before taking 
his seat in the House of Commons, handed to Sir Thomas 
Erskine May, the Clerk of the House, the following 
statement : 

To 
The Right Honble. the Speaker. 

I, the undersigned, Charles Bradlaugh, beg respectfully to 
claim to be allowed to affirm as a person for the time being by law 
permitted to make a solemn affirmation or declaration, instead 
of taking an oath. 

On being invited by the Speaker (Sir Henry Brand) to 
make a statement to the House with regard to his claim, he 
replied : 

Mr. Speaker, I have only now to submit that the Parliament- 
ary Oaths Act, 1866, gives the right to affirm to every person for 
the time being permitted to make affirmation. I am such a 
person; and under the Evidence Amendment Act, 1869, and the 
Evidence Amendment Act, 1870, I have repeatedly for nine 
years past affirmed in the highest courts of jurisdiction in this 
realm. I am ready to make the declaration or affirmation of 
allegiance. 

It might have been thought that the principle of Mr. 
Bradlaugh's position needed only to be stated to be accepted 
by men of honourable feeling and average intelligence. 
After all, as Mr. Labouchere, in course of conversation on 
this very point, once remarked to me: "a statement is either 
true or false, and expletives cannot affect it." The legal 
precedents, invoked, although they did not actually mention 



146 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1880- 

the parliamentary oath, had been considered sufficient by 
the last Liberal law officers. Sir Henry Brand, however, 
had "grave doubts," and desired to refer the claim to the 
House's judgment. Lord Frederick Cavendish, on behalf 
of the Treasury Bench, seconded by Sir Stafford Northcote, 
the leader of the Opposition, moved that the point be re- 
ferred to a Select Committee. Lord Percy and Mr. David 
Onslow attempted in vain to adjourn the debate. 

On May 10, Lord Richard Grosvenor, the Government 
Whip, announced the names of the proposed Committee: 
Mr. Whitbread, Sir J. Holker, Mr. John Bright, Lord Henry 
Lennox, Mr. W. H. Massey, Mr. Staveley Hill, Sir Henry 
Jackson, Sir Henry James (the Attorney-General), Mr. 
Farrer Herschell (the Solicitor-General), Sir G. Goldney, 
Mr. Grantham, Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Watkin Williams, Mr. 
Spencer Walpole, Mr. Hopwood, Mr. Beresford Hope, Major 
Nolan, Mr. Chaplin, and Mr. Serjeant Simon. In spite of 
the fact that the actual motion was not to come on till the 
next day. Sir Henry Drummond Wolff endeavoured at once 
to raise a debate on the legitimacy of the Committee, and 
the next day succeeded in doing so. The debate was 
characterised by "great violence and recklessness," but the 
Government succeeded in getting their Committee appointed 
by a majority of seventy-four. The report of the Com- 
mittee was presented on May 20. Eight members were 
in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh's right to affirm, and eight 
members against: Mr. Spencer Walpole, the Chairman, 
took the responsibility of giving his casting vote for the 
Noes. All the Noes with the exception of Mr. Hopwood 
were Conservatives, the rest of the Liberals voting on the 
affirmative side. _ Bradlaugh now claimed the right to take 
the oath, as the right to affirm was denied him. 

There has been so much misunderstanding of Bradlaugh's 
position on this point that it may be well to explain exactly 
what it was that he did claim. In a statement of his case 
subsequently published in his paper. The National Reformer, 



i88i] LABOUCHERE AND BRADLAUGH 147 

on May 30, 1889, Mr. Bradlaugh used the following words: 
"My duty to my constituents is to fulfil the mandate they 
have given me, and if, to do this, I have to submit to a form 
less solemn to me than the affirmation I would have rever- 
ently made, so much the worse for those who force me to 
repeat words which I have scores of times declared are to 
me sounds conveying no clear and definite meaning. I am 
sorry for the earnest believers who see words sacred to them 
used as a meaningless addendum to a promise, but I cannot 
permit their less sincere co-religionists to use an idle form, 
in order to prevent me from doing my duty to those who 
have chosen me to speak for them in Parliament. / shall, 
taking the oath, regard myself, as bound, not hy the letter of its 
words, hut by the spirit which the affirmation would have con- 
veyed had I been permitted to use it. So soon as I am able, 
I shall take such steps as may be consistent with parliament- 
ary'' business to put an end to the present doubtful and 
unfortunate state of the law and practice on oaths and 
affirmations." 

The words italicised indicate very clearly the spirit in 
which Mr. Bradlaugh proposed to take the oath. To do so, 
was, as he conceived, the only way, since the adverse decision 
of the Committee on his claim to affirm, by which he could 
qualify himself for the performance of his duty to his con- 
stituents. It was in no sense intended as an insult to those 
to whom the oath had a distinct and positive religious value, 
or as a defiance of the dignity or orders of the House. This 
document was dated May 30, the day on which the report 
of the Committee was issued, and on the following day, 
Mr. Bradlaugh presented himself to take the oath and his 
seat. 

Sir Henry Drummond Wolff at once rose and objected 
to the administration of the oath, and, on the Speaker's 
allowing his objection, proceeded to make a remarkable 
speech. For flippancy of tone and sheer ineptitude of 
argument, not to speak of the crass and brutal quality of 



148 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1880- 

the prejudice which inspired it, this deliverance possesses 
an unenviable pre-eminence among the many absurdities 
uttered by honourable members during the Bradlaugh 
parliamentary struggle. Wolff's argument rested on two 
grounds, both palpably false, while the second was entirely 
irrelevant to the point at issue. He maintained that Athe- 
ists who had made affirmations in courts of law (as Mr. 
Bradlaugh had done) thereby admitted that an oath "would 
not be binding on their conscience," and, furthermore, that 
Bradlaugh had stated, in his "Impeachment of the House 
of Brunswick," that "Parliament has the undoubted right 
to withhold the crown from Albert Edward, Prince of Wales." 
Sir Henry "could not see how a gentleman professing the 
views set forth in that work could take the oath of alle- 
giance." He went on to say : "What we have now before us 
is the distinct negation of anything like perpetual morality 
or conscience, or the existence of God. And, as I believe that 
a person holding these views cannot be allowed to take the 
oath in this House, I beg to move my resolution." Mr. R. N. 
Forster seconded. Mr. Gladstone at once rose and, while 
refraining from expressing any personal opinion, suggested 
reference to a Select Committee. Sir Henry James supported 
the Prime Minister's amendment. Mr. Labouchere, speak- 
ing as the colleague of the honourable member in the re- 
presentation of Northampton, said that he thought it right 
to state that his honourable friend was selected by the 
majority of the constituents solely on account of his political 
views. They did not occupy themselves with his religious 
convictions, because they were under the impression that 
they were giving him political, rather than theological, 
functions to fulfil in that House. A proposal had been made 
by the Prime Minister that this matter should be referred 
to a Select Committee. It certainly did appear to him 
(Mr. Labouchere) somewhat strange that a member who 
had been duly elected should be told that he could not take 
his seat because he was forbidden to make an affirmation on 



i88i] LABOUCHERE AND BRADLAUGH 149 

account of his not being a Quaker or a Moravian, and be- 
cause he was forbidden from taking the oath on account of 
certain speculative rehgious opinions, which he had pro- 
fessed. But that appeared to be the view of many gentlemen 
on the other side of the House, and he should be perfectly- 
ready to discuss that view; but, as the Prime Minister had 
very rightly said, the matter was a judicial one, and it would be 
far better, in his humble opinion, that it should be referred 
to a Committee of the House to look at it in its judicial aspect 
rather than that there should be an acrimonious theologi- 
cal discussion in that House. When, however, it was re- 
ferred to a Committee, he thought that he had a right to ask, 
in the name of his constituents, that that Committee should 
decide it as soon as possible. Should the Committee decide 
that the honourable gentleman was not to be allowed to take 
the oath, it would then become, if not his duty, the duty of 
some other honourable gentleman to bring in a bill to enable 
his colleague to make an affirmation in order that his con- 
stituents might enjoy the right which the constitution gave 
them of being represented by two members in that House. 

Lord Percy drily observed that he was sorry for the 
electors of Northampton if they were deprived of the serv- 
ices of one of their representatives, because the honourable 
gentleman was recommended to them by his honourable 
colleague, whose religious opinions were well known, and, 
after an eloquent speech from Mr. Bright, who recommended 
"the statesmanlike and judicious course which has been 
suggested to us by the First Minister of the Crown," the 
debate was adjourned. 

On the resumption of the debate the next day, the wildest 
remarks were made by Mr. Bradlaugh's opponents. Dr. 
Lyons proposed the solution that "Northampton should 
send us a God-fearing if not a God-loving man." Mr. 
Warton argued that "the man who does not fear God cannot 
honour the King," and Mr. Callan scoffed at Mr. Bright's 
tribute of respect to Mr, Bradlaugh's sense of honour and 



150 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1880- 

conscience, "language," he said, "that should not be used 
with reference to an infidel blasphemer." After the din 
caused by this ex parte criticism had subsided, the still small 
voice of Mr. Labouchere was heard mildly asking whether 
the honourable member was in order in referring to his 
colleague as an infidel blasphemer, and the Speaker having 
ruled the phrase out of order, Mr. Callan withdrew it. He 
was, however, an ardent polemist, and added that he was 
sure that Mr. Labouchere, in spite of his support of Mr. 
Bradlaugh, "would prefer in this House his old acquaintance 
Lambri Pasha to the gentleman who was the subject of the 
debate." And so the foolish wrangle went on, recalling 
the historian's account of the CEcumenical Council. It is 
true that the amateur theologians of Westminster stopped 
short of pulling each other's beards. Their zeal had not 
quite the professional note of that of the Fathers at Ephesus. 

After two days of this sort of thing. Sir Henry Drummond 
Wolff's motion was rejected by 289 votes to 219, and a second 
Select Committee of twenty-three was appointed. The 
members were: the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, 
Messrs. Bright, Chaplin, Childers, Sir Richard Cross, Mr. 
Gibson, Sir Gabriel Goldney, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Staveley 
Hill, Sir John Holker, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Hopwood, 
Sir Henry Jackson, Lord Henry Lennox, Mr. Massey, Major 
Nolan, Messrs. Pemberton, Simon, Trevelyan, Walpole, 
Whitbread, and Watkin Williams, 

The Committee reported that Bradlaugh by simply 
stating (though in answer to official question) that he had 
repeatedly affirmed under certain Acts in courts of law, had 
brought it to the notice of the House that he was a person 
as to whom judges had satisfied themselves that an oath was 
not binding on his conscience ; that, under the circumstances, 
an oath taken by him would not be an oath within the true 
meaning of the statutes ; and that the House therefore could, 
and ought, to prevent him from going through the form. 
The Committee further suggested that he should be allowed 



i88i] LABOUCHERE AND BRADLAUGH 151 

to affirm with a view to his right to do so being tested by 
legal action, pointing to the nearly equal balance of votes 
in the former Committee as a reason for desiring a decisive 
legal solution. 

On June 21, Mr. Labouchere moved "that Mr. Brad- 
laugh, member for the borough of Northampton, be ad- 
mitted to make an affirmation or declaration instead of the 
oath required by law." This speech was one of the best he 
ever made in the House. It was an admirable piece of 
argument and an excellent piece of literature, solidly reasoned 
and witty; "it is contrary to, it is repugnant to, the feelings 
of all men of tolerant minds that any gentleman should be 
hindered from performing civil functions in this world on 
account of speculative opinions about another" — was a 
terse summing up of the situation worthy of Gibbon. His 
main argument was that the Parliamentary Oaths Act of 
1866 gave to all persons, legally entitled to affirm in the law 
courts, the right to affirm in Parliament. He further pointed 
out that the refusal to allow Bradlaugh to affirm would be 
to turn him into a martyr. Mr. Bright again made a fine 
speech in which he said, amid ironical cheers from the Oppo- 
sition, that he pretended to no conscience and honour supe- 
rior to the conscience of Mr. Bradlaugh. Mr. Gladstone 
also spoke cogently in favour of Mr. Labouchere's motion. 
It was, however, lost by a majority of 45, of whom 5 were 
English Liberals and 31 Irish Home Rulers. 

On June 23, Mr. Bradlaugh again presented himself 
at the table of the House. The Speaker called on him to 
withdraw, in accordance with the vote of the night before. 
Mr. Labouchere then moved that "Mr. Bradlaugh be now 
heard at the Bar of the House," following which motion Mr. 
Bradlaugh made an eloquent and dignified defence of his 
position. A confused debate followed, and Mr. Labouchere 
moved that "Yesterday's decision be rescinded," with- 
drawing his motion, however, on an appeal from Mr. Glad- 
stone. The Speaker then recalled Bradlaugh to the table, 



152 HENRY LABOUCHERE [i88o~ 

and informed him that the House had nothing to say to him 
beyond once more calling upon him to withdraw. Bradlaugh 
replied: "I beg respectfully to insist on my right as a duly 
elected member for Northampton. I ask you to have the 
oath administered to me in order that I may take my seat, 
and I respectfully refuse to withdraw." After a second 
admonition from the Speaker, to which Bradlaugh replied, 
"With respect I do refuse to obey the orders of the House, 
which are against the law," the House was appealed to "to 
give authority to the Chair to compel execution of its orders." 
Mr, Gladstone, although called upon, did not rise. He 
appeared to be absorbed in deep thought, and, with his 
gaze fixed on a vague distance, just above the heads of the 
belligerent theologians, he meditatively twirled his thumbs. 
Northcote hesitatingly moved, "though I am not quite sure 
what the terms of the motion should be, that Mr. Speaker 
do take the necessary steps for requiring and enforcing the 
withdrawal of the honourable member for Northampton." 
The Speaker explained that the motion should simply be 
"that the honourable member do now withdraw." On a 
division being taken, 326 voted in favour of the motion 
and only 38 against. On the Speaker renewing his order, 
Mr. Bradlaugh answered: "With submission to you. Sir, 
the order of the House is against the law, and I respectfully 
refuse to obey it." The Sergeant-at-Arms was now called, 
and touching him on the shoulder, requested him to with- 
draw. Mr. Bradlaugh said: "I will submit to the Sergeant- 
at-Arms removing me below the Bar, but I shall immediately 
return to the table," and did so, saying as he returned toward 
the table, "I claim my right as a member of this House." 
This little ceremony was repeated twice, the House being in 
an uproar. High above the din, Mr. Bradlaugh's voice 
could be heard shouting: "I claim my right as a member of 
this House. I admit the right of the House to imprison 
me, but I admit no right on the part of the House to exclude 
me, and I refuse to be excluded." He was again led to 



i88i] LABOUCHERE AND BRADLAUGH 153 

the Bar by the Sergeant-at-Arms to await the House's 
action. 

Mr. Bradlaugh had, no doubt not unintentionally, indi- 
cated to his enemies the only line they could take. It was 
his tactic, and a wise one, to force the House into the extreme 
measure of physical force. To do so was a fair retort from 
a Rationalist to his opponents. Northcote, complaining 
again of Mr. Gladstone's inaction, proceeded to move that 
"Mr. Bradlaugh, having defied the authority of the House, 
be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms." Mr. 
Labouchere at once rose and said that he would not oppose 
the resolution, although he thought it a somewhat strange 
thing that a citizen of this country should be sent to prison 
for doing what eminent legal gentlemen on his side and an 
eminent legal gentleman on the other side of the House said 
he had a perfect right to do. He was interrupted by cries 
of "No, No!" He continued that he did not know whether 
honourable members opposite meant to say that the honour- 
able and learned gentleman, the late Attorney-General, was 
not an eminent legal authority on such a point. That was 
the view taken by that honourable and learned gentleman. 
It seemed a somewhat hard thing that any one should be put 
into prison for doing what a general consensus of legal opin- 
ion in that House held to be his duty and his right. But, 
as the Prime Minister had stated, it was useless to oppose 
the motion, because Mr. Bradlaugh had come into conflict 
with a resolution of the House, whether that resolution were 
right or wrong. He, regretting as he did the necessity that 
had been forced upon the House, did not think he should 
be serving any good purpose in opposing the resolution, or 
in asking the House to go into a vote on this question. He 
believed himself that the sending of Mr. Bradlaugh into 
custody would be the first step towards his becoming a 
recognised member of the House. It is interesting to note 
that Mr. Pamell also spoke in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh, and 
said that, if Irish members voted for his imprisonment, 



154 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1880- 

they would be going contrary to the feeling of their country. 
On a division being taken there were 274 Ayes to 7 Noes, 
and Mr. Bradlaugh was removed in the custody of the 
Sergeant-at-Arms to the Clock Tower. 

The imprisonment was rather an insiilt than an injury. 
The prisoner received his friends freely and openly, and 
proceeded to the business of fighting his battle in the country 
from his "cell." A cry of indignation, which must have 
greatly surprised the Tories, went up all over England, and, 
on the next day, Northcote, at the urgent advice, it is said, 
of Lord Beaconsfield, moved for Bradlaugh's immediate 
and unconditional release. On Sir Stafford making his 
motion, Mr. Labouchere pointed out to the House, "in order 
that there may be no misconception in the matter," that 
Mr. Bradlaugh would immediately on his release "return 
to the House and do what the Prime Minister, the colleagues 
of the Prime Minister, the present Attorney-General and 
the late Attorney-General, say he has an absolute legal right 
to do." The motion was nevertheless agreed to, and Mr. 
Bradlaugh was released. 

The next day, June 25, Mr. Labouchere gave notice 
that he should move on the following Tuesday that the 
resolution of the House, which had resulted in Mr. Brad- 
laugh's imprisonment, should be read and rescinded. He 
also asked for special facilities from the Government on 
that day for bringing the matter before the House. Mr. 
Gladstone, whilst reserving his answer as to the particular 
form of proceeding, agreed that "it was certainly requisite 
and necessary that the subject of Mr. Bradlaugh's right 
should be considered," and promised facilities for the day 
mentioned by Mr. Labouchere. On the Monday, however, 
Mr. Gladstone himself informed the House that the Govern- 
ment had framed the following resolution, which they in- 
tended to submit: "That every person returned as a member 
of this House, who may claim to be a person for the time 
being b}^ law permitted to make a solemn affirmation or 



i88i] LABOUCHERE AND BRADLAUGH 155 

declaration instead of taking an oath, shall, henceforth 
(notwithstanding so much of the resolution adopted by this 
House on the 226. of June last, as relates to affirmation), 
be permitted without question to make and subscribe a 
solemn affirmation in the form prescribed by the Parliament- 
ary Oaths Act, 1866, as altered by the Promissory Oaths 
Act, 1868, subject to any liability by Statute; and, secondly, 
that this resolution be a standing Order of this House." 
The Prime Minister then expressed the hope that, as the 
question would be raised in what the Government considered 
the most convenient manner, Mr. Labouchere would not 
consider it necessary to proceed with any motion on the 
following day. Mr. Labouchere withdrew his resolution 
"after the very satisfactory Notice, which has just been 
given by the Prime Minister." 

The next day, when Mr. Gladstone made his motion, 
Sir John Gorst opposed it, on the technical ground that it 
was a breach of the Rule of the House, which laid down that, 
if a question had been considered by the House and a definite 
judgment pronounced, the same, or what was substantially 
the same, question could not be put again to the House dur- 
ing the same session. This contention was, however, over- 
ruled by the Speaker, and, on a division being taken, the 
Prime Minister's resolution was accepted by a majority 
of 54, the Ayes numbering 303 and the Noes 249. Brad- 
laugh was now free to affirm at his own legal risk, and he 
did so the next day, thus bringing to a conclusion the first 
movement of this ironic symphony. 

There can be no doubt that Mr. Labouchere's great 
speech of June 21 contributed powerfully to this result. 
Apart from the speeches of Mr. Gladstone and Mr, Bright, 
and indeed Mr. Bradlaugh's own fine speech at the Bar of 
the House on June 23, it was the only attempt made to 
present the constitutional and legal aspects of Bradlaugh's 
case in their true light. The subject was one that appealed 
very strongly to Mr, Labouchere. In personal agreement 



156 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1880- 

with the views which it was sought to penalise in the person 
of Mr. Bradlaugh (although it would have been alien to his 
temperament to have enrolled himself as a partisan of those 
views), his attack on Mr, Bradlaugh's enemies acquired 
weight and energy from the love of individual liberty that 
was at the bottom of his character, and his detestation, on 
that, as on every other occasion of his public life, of oppres- 
sion and prejudice. 

The prejudice aroused by Bradlaugh's entrance into the 
House of Commons was slow to disperse. Numerous peti- 
tions for his exclusion from Parliament were signed, in some 
cases, en bloc, by Sunday-school children. The varieties 
of English Protestantism were all zealous in the good cause, 
and Cardinal Manning, who wrote a violent article in the 
Nineteenth Century on the subject, succeeded in presenting 
a monster petition from English and exiled Irish Roman 
Catholics. There were, however, some notable exceptions 
among those who represented the religious principle. Several 
clergymen of the Church of England and not a few Non- 
conformist ministers wrote to the papers on his behalf. 
Newman refused to sign the petition, on constitutional 
grounds, and the "Home Government Association of Glas- 
gow" sent to Bradlaugh a resolution stating "that this 
meeting of Irish Roman Catholics . . . most emphatically 
condemns the spirit of domination and intolerance arrayed 
against you, and views with astonishment and indignation 
the cowardly acquiescence and, in a few instances, active 
support, on the part of a large majority of the Irish Home 
Rule members to the policy of oppression exercised against 
you." Such voices were, however, few and far between; 
in the House itself the Opposition could not resist the tempta- 
tion of such a weapon against the Government. It was good 
policy, as Lord Henry Lennox said, in a moment of expan- 
sion, "to put that damned Bradlaugh on them." Mr. 
Labouchere held an unswerving course in support of his 
colleague. Temperamentally, as has been said, he did not 



i88i] LABOUCHERE AND BRADLAUGH 157 

sympathise with Mr. Bradlaugh's attitude. He did not 
share Mr. Bradlaugh's view of the importance of transcen- 
dental opinions of any shade, and his wider experience of 
life and human nature led him to gauge more truly perhaps, 
certainly very differently, the value in the social scheme of 
other people's religious belief. He would never himself 
have raised the question raised by Mr. Bradlaugh, but he 
was wise enough to realise that, once it was raised, there 
was only one way of settling it. In the course of his long 
life, he championed many a victim of oppression and preju- 
dice, but it may be doubted whether his championship ever 
showed to greater advantage, was ever more firmly based 
on those wide views of justice which imderlie genuine po- 
litical sagacity, and distinguish the true statesman from the 
mere politician, than in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh's par- 
liamentary struggle. 

The venue of that struggle was shortly transferred to 
the law courts. Bradlaugh had affirmed and taken his 
seat at his own legal risk. During the five months in which 
Parliament sat between July, 1880, and March, 1 881, he was 
one of the most assiduous and energetic members of the 
House. On March 7, the action of one Clarke v. Brad- 
laugh came on the Court of Queen's Bench before Mr. 
Justice Matthew. On the nth the judge delivered his 
judgment, which was against the defendant. He said that 
the Parliamentary Oaths Act, cited in his favour by Brad- 
laugh, only permitted affirmation to persons holding re- 
ligious beliefs. On judgment being delivered against him, 
Bradlaugh applied for a stay of execution of costs, with 
view to an appeal, which was granted, the judge consenting 
to stay his verdict for the opinion of the Court of Appeal to 
be taken. The appeal was heard on March 30 by Lord 
Justices Bramwell, Lush, and Baggallay, but their decision 
was again adverse to the defendant. The point taken was 
not, as Mr. Labouchere had argued before the House, the 
actual grammatical meaning of the wording of the Act, but 



158 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1880- 

the intention of the framers of the Act. Their Lordships 
held that it had only been intended to emancipate persons 
possessed of positive religious beliefs rendering the taking 
of an oath repugnant to their consciences. This rendered 
the second seat for Northampton vacant. On April i Mr. 
Labouchere, in the course of moving for a new writ for the 
borough of Northampton, said that a decision had now 
been given against Bradlaugh by three judges, and, in all 
probability, the House of Lords would decide against him. 
He was authorised by Mr. , Bradlaugh to say that he fully 
accepted the law as laid down by the Court of Appeal, and 
that it was not fair that Northampton should have one 
member only — the election might be got over by the Easter 
holidays, and honourable and right honourable gentlemen 
would have an opportunity of considering what course they 
would take should Mr. Bradlaugh be re-elected. The writ 
was issued, and Mr. Bradlaugh was, as Mr. Labouchere 
had predicted, re-elected on April 9. Mr. Labouchere 
made a speech at Northampton, before the election, in 
defence of his colleague, the interest of which was wider 
than that of the Bradlaugh controversy on account of one 
statement in it. He described his leave-taking of Mr. 
Gladstone, on his departure from London, in these words: 
"And, men of Northampton, that grand old man said to me, 
as he patted me on the shoulder, 'Henry my boy, bring him 
back, bring him back!'" I think Mr. Labouchere's auto- 
biographical Muse used a poetic license here. It is certainly 
difficult to imagine Mr. Gladstone patting the member for 
Northampton on the back, and calling him "Henry, my 
boy." The success of this allusion to the Prime Minister, 
however, was enormous, and the name stuck. Mr. Glad- 
stone was the "Grand Old Man" for the rest of his life. 

As every one knows, Bradlaugh again was not allowed to 
take his seat. That his attitude caused embarrassment to 
the Liberal party cannot be denied. At the end of June, he 
wrote to Mr. Labouchere on the subject of forcing another 



i88i] LABOUCHERE AND BRADLAUGH 159 

contest in the House, and Mr. Labouchere forwarded his 
letter to Mr. Chamberlain with the following comments : 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, July 2, 1881. 

Dear Chamberlain, — Please look at enclosed letter. If 
you think it of any use, show it to Mr. Gladstone. I send it to 
you in order that you may see what are, I take it, the genuine 
intentions of Bradlaugh. I had written to him to suggest that 
he should go up to the table and take the oath at the end of the 
Session, and I offered if he liked to do so on the last day of the 
Session to talk on until the Black Rod appeared, or, if he preferred 
to do so before, I said that Government always had a majority 
during the last week or two, and that, probably, if a division 
were taken upon expulsion, he would win it. 

Yesterday I received a letter from the Executive Committee 
of the Liberal and Radical Caucus at Northampton, telling me 
that Bradlaugh had sent to call a public meeting next Wednesday, 
and asking me to come down to meet the Committee on that day 
to advise with them what to do, as Bradlaugh has asked for a 
resolution to be passed, in the nature of a mandate ordering him 
to take his seat. I have written urging delay, but, of course, in 
this matter I have to carry out the wishes of the constituency, 
as the question regards them. 

Whilst Bradlaugh exaggerates his strength, his opponents 
underestimate it. He can bring together a mob, with a vast 
number of fanatics in it, ready for anything, and he contends that 
he is illegally hindered from taking his seat, and therefore may 
oppose physical force to physical force. 

From what I gather, from many Members of Parliament, 
they are very anxious that the matter should be settled this 
Session, because they think that its being kept open will do the 
Party great harm. 

Why cannot the BilP be brought in after the Land Bill? It 
has but one clause, and if our side speak very briefly, the Con- 
servatives cannot go on talking for ever on so simple a matter. 
Moreover, there are a good many Conservatives who have told 
me that they are not against the Bill. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

* The Oaths Bill. 



i6o HENRY LABOUCHERE [1880- 

Mr. Gladstone discouraged Bradlaugh from resorting 
to any more militant methods just then, and intimated that 
it would be useless to bring in the Oaths Bill, as they pro- 
posed to close the session eariy in August, and they could 
not hope to carry any strongly controversial measure after 
the Land Bill. 

This book is not a life of Bradlaugh, and it is enough to 
have noted here the first phase of the ignoble struggle. As 
is well known, Bradlaugh returned to the House, and fol- 
lowing Mr. Labouchere's suggestion, administered the oath 
to himself. A sordid fight ensued on the attempt to remove 
him forcibly, in which no merely formal violence was offered. 
His clothes were torn off his back and, although a man of 
unusual physical strength, he fainted in the melee. Brad- 
laugh, in that Parliament, was never allowed to discharge 
his duty as a member. Once more re-elected by the con- 
stituency in the General Election of 1885, the Speaker 
would suffer no intervention, and he took the oath and his 
seat, and in 1888, in spite of a Conservative majority, secured 
the passing of an Affirmation Bill. Finally, in 1891, when 
Mr. Bradlaugh was lying on his death-bed, after a brief 
parliamentary career that had won for him the respect of 
all parties, the resolution of January 22, 1881, that had been 
passed amid "such estatic transports," was expimged from 
the records of the House. I cannot refrain from quoting 
the fine tribute paid to his memory and excellent summing 
up of the case as bearing on the real crux of the situation, 
made by Mr. Gladstone, a few days later, in the course 
of introducing his Religious Disabilities Removal Bill on 
February 4: 

A distinguished man and an admirable member of this House 
was laid yesterday in his mother earth. He was the subject of 
a long controversy in this House, the beginning of which we 
recollect and the ending of which we recollect. We remember 
with what zeal it was prosecuted; we remember how summarily 



i88il LABOUCHERE AND BRADLAUGH i6i 

it was dropped; we remember also what reparation has been 
done within the last few days to the distinguished man who was 
the immediate object of that controversy. But does anybody 
who hears me believe that the controversy so prosecuted and so 
abandoned was beneficial to the Christian Religion? 

Throughout that controversy, his fellow-member for 
Northampton was his loyal colleague both in the country 
and the House. In season and out of season Mr. Labou- 
chere spoke, moved, and agitated until the victory, to which 
his advocacy was so important a contribution, was won, 
and, after Bradlaugh's death in 1891, he published the 
following paragraphs in the pages of Truth, bearing witness 
to the nobility of Bradlaugh's character: 

Mr. Bradlaugh was a man of herculean physical strength, but 
of great nervous susceptibility. I believe that he never entirely 
recovered from the rough usage which he met with when he 
sought to force his way into the House of Commons. Last year 
he had a serious illness. He recovered, but he came out of it a 
broken man. He would not, however, admit this, and he strug- 
gled on in the House of Commons, at public meetings, and at his 
desk, with the sad result that we all know. 

Never was a man less understood. I never knew any one w ith 
a stronger sense of public decorum or with a deeper respect for 
law. When he asked leave to affirm in the House of Commons 
it was said by some that he was seeking notoriety; by others, 
that he wished to defy the law. What led to it was this : I was 
sitting by his side when the Parliament of 1881 met, and he 
said to me, " I shall ask to be allowed to affirm, as with my views 
this would be more decorous than for me to take the oath." I 
repHed, " Are you sure that you legally can affirm? " "Yes," he 
answered; "I have looked closely into the matter and I am 
satisfied of my legal right." His attempt to affirm was, there- 
fore, solely due to a desire to respect the feelings of others, and 
to the conviction that the law allowed him to do so. 

Mr. Bradlaugh was my colleague for ten years. During 
all these years our relations, political and personal, were always 
of the most cordial character. He was in private life a thoroughly 



i62 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1880- 

true and amiable man, whilst in public life he was ever ready to 
sacrifice popularity to his convictions of what was right. He was, 
as is known, an atheist, but his standard of duty was a very high 
one, and he lived up to it. His life was an example to Christians, 
for he abounded in every Christian virtue. This the House of 
Commons came at last to recognise. I do not think that there 
is a single member more popular or more respected than he was 
on both sides. Often and often Conservatives have, in a friendly 
way, said to me: "What a much better man your colleague is 
than you are!" And I heartily agreed with them. 

Regarding money, he was more than disinterested. So that 
he had enough to pay for his food, his clothes, and for his modest 
lodging in St. John's Wood, he never seemed to trouble himself 
as to ways and means. In one part of his life he had been led 
into some sort of commercial enterprise which did not succeed, 
and the failure resulted in his owing a considerable sum. He 
called his creditors together, told them that he had nothing, but 
if they would agree to wait he would pay them twenty shilHngs 
in the pound. They trusted him. He went to America, made 
the money by lecturing; returned, called them together, and 
fulfilled his promise. His lodgings in St. John's Wood were over 
a music shop. They consisted of one or two bedrooms and of a 
large room, with deal shelves round it for his books, an old bureau 
where he wrote, and a few chairs and tables. He had a great 
affection for his books, and the only time I ever saw him dis- 
quieted about money matters was when he feared that he might 
have to give them up, owing to some bankruptcy proceedings 
that were threatened, in consequence of one of his numerous 
actions on the oath question. 

In an article, published in the Northampton Echo just 
after the death of Mr. Labouchere, that able writer, Mr. 
C. A. McCurdy, comments thus on the first Radical members 
for Northampton: 

What a strangely assorted pair Northam.pton's two members 
were in those days ! Bradlaugh, a giant in stature as in intellect, 
Boanergian in his oratory, tremendous in the strength of it, 
sweeping away opposition by the force of its torrent — Labou- 



i88i] LABOUCHERE AND BRADLAUGH 163 

chere, with his sHght figure, his quiet, sardonic manner, wielding 
a rapier which was sometimes even more deadly than the battle- 
axe and broadsword of his colleague. His aristocratic connec- 
tions and his wealth accentuated the clear and strong outline of 
his Radicalism. His disregard of convention, his simplicity, his 
courage, his irrepressible gaiety and wit, the audacity of his 
envenomed personal assaults, the passionless quality of it all, 
the cynic's pose — all this, combined with his encyclopsedic 
knowledge and the sureness of his aim in controversy, made him 
the idol of Northampton Radicals. How they laughed at his 
solemn assumption of moderation and orthodoxy! But how 
sure they were of his earnestness and conviction! And how 
proud of his easy triumphs in the battles of the wits, of his courage 
and resource in the conflicts of Parliament and the political fame 
which he, working loyally with Bradlaugh, helped to win for 
Northampton!^ 

It is impossible before leaving the subject of Mr. Brad- 
laugh's struggle for liberty of conscience, not to recall the 
very similar episode of Wilkes' fight with the House of 
Commons a little more than a hundred years earlier. Mr. 
Labouchere, speaking in the House on the occasion of 
Bradlaugh's presenting himself to take the oath, after his 
re-election in 1884, pointed out that behind his colleague 
stood the people of England. He continued: "I do not say 
this from any feeling of regard or affection for Mr. Bradlaugh 
as an individual; assume if you like that Mr. Bradlaugh is 
the vilest of men [Mr. Warton, Hear, hear!], as was stated 
by Mr. Wilkes, ' in attacking the rights of the vilest of men 
you have attacked the rights of the most noble of mankind.' " ^ 
Bradlaugh established the principle that legislative rights 
are wholly independent of religious belief, and that what 
Drummond Wolff called "the distinct negation of anything 
like perpetual morality or conscience and the existence of 
God," does not affect a man's capacity for the exercise of 
his political rights. 

' Northampton Echo, January 17, 1912. 
'Hansard, February 11, 1884, vol. 284. 



l64 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1880-1881] 

This means that the modem state is non-theistic, and 
that our civiHsation, of which the state is the poHtical expres- 
sion, is based on those positive social needs of man to which 
theological problems, however interesting in themselves, 
are irrelevant. Thus, in Bradlaugh's victory, to the win- 
ning of which Mr. Labouchere so powerfully contributed, 
one of the most important principles of 1789 was definitely 
ratified by the representatives of the people, the Lords, 
spiritual and temporal, and the sovereign of this country. 

A truly momentous event, the importance of which it 
would be hard to overestimate. For it means that God has 
ceased to exist in England as a political entity. In like 
manner, the action of Wilkes, in severely criticising the 
Speech from the Throne in the North Briton for April 23, 
1762, and condemning the Ministers who were responsible 
for its production, raised, and settled for ever in England the 
question of the political position of the sovereign. In both 
cases the man who dared to raise such points was pursued 
rancorously and unfairly by the partisans of officialdom, in 
both cases the utmost force of law and order arrayed against 
him failed. The enemies of Wilkes and Bradlaugh failed, 
because the stars in their courses fought against them — 
because the time had gone by when kings could rule as well 
as reign, or when the qualification of religious belief was 
necessary for the full rights of citizenship. 



CHAPTER VIII 
LABOUCHERE AND IRELAND 

1881-1883 

WHEN Lord Cowper, the Irish Viceroy, under the influ- 
ence of the Chief Secretary, Mr. Forster, represented 
to Mr. Gladstone in the early autumn of 1880 the necessity 
of coercive measures for the government of Ireland, he found 
the Prime Minister profoundly opposed to departure from 
the ordinary law. The Viceroy was pressed to suspend the 
Habeas Corpus Act by every agent, every landlord, every 
magistrate in the country. The number of outrages against 
life and property had increased pari passu with the number 
of evictions. The Land League, which had been formed, 
under the presidency of Pamell, the preceding year, had 
taken up the cause of the evicted tenants and, by establish- 
ing the elaborate system of persecution, named after its 
first victim, Lord Mayo's English agent. Captain Boycott, 
rendered it almost impossible to let farms from which a 
tenant had been evicted. When, on September 25, Lord 
Mountmorres, a poor man with a small estate, who could 
really not afford to reduce his rents, was murdered, such 
was the popular detestation of the murdered man that the 
owner of the nearest house refused shelter to the corpse, no 
hearse could be obtained to convey it to the grave, and the 
family had to fly to England. The maiming of cattle, a 

1 6s 



i66 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1881- 

method of reprisal constantly adopted by evicted tenants, 
further contributed to inflame English opinion, both in and 
out of Ireland, against the Nationalist party, who were held 
responsible by the man in the street for everything that was 
going on. Mr. Bright was still more opposed than Mr. 
Gladstone to the repeal of the Habeas Corpus, and so was 
Mr. Chamberlain, who had joined the Government as 
President of the Board of Trade. Before giving way to Mr. 
Forster, the Cabinet determined to use the ordinary methods 
of law, and prosecuted the heads of the Land League for 
"conspiring to prevent the payment of rent, resist the pro- 
cess of eviction, and obstruct the letting of surrendered 
farms." The public announcement of the prosecution in 
no way intimidated the Land League. The prosecution, 
although announced on November 3, did not, on account 
of legal delays, begin until after Christmas. Disorder at 
once became more rampant and outrages more frequent. 
On November 23, Cowper wrote again to Mr. Gladstone, 
threatening his resignation in the following January, if he 
were not given fuller powers. On December 12, he made 
his last appeal, urging that Parliament should be immediately 
summoned. Mr. Gladstone yielded the very day before 
the trial of the Land League began in Dublin, and summoned 
Parliament for January 6, 1881. 

On the first night of the session Mr. Forster gave notice 
of the introduction of Bills for the protection of life and 
property in Ireland. But the Irish members had taken the 
phrase in the Queen's Speech that "additional powers are 
required by the Irish Government for the protection of life 
and property," as a declaration of war, and commenced 
the policy of obstruction of which they were afterwards to 
make so powerful a weapon. They succeeded in protracting 
the debate on the Address for eleven days. 

Forster' s case was a very simple one. The Land League 
was supreme, and its power must be crippled. This could 
only be done by extending the range of the executive. With 



i883] LABOUCHERE AND IRELAND 167 

the suspension of Habeas Corpus the authors of the outrages, 
who were known to the poHce, could be arrested and the 
course of justice would not be interfered with by corrupt 
evidence. It was the point of view of the official responsible 
for public order, that and nothing more. Mr. Parnell's 
view pierced the surface facts of the case. The League did 
nothing but organise and express the public opinion of 
Ireland. The Government's policy was simply one of 
coercion, that is, of violence. Although it was admitted 
that wrongs were endured, the Government's policy did 
not include any method of redressing those wrongs. Evic- 
tion of tenants who could not possibly pay their rent through 
no fault of their own was palpable injustice. Let that 
injustice be put an end to, and outrages would soon cease. 
It was clearly the duty of the representatives of Ireland to 
put every difficulty in the way of the passing of such a 
measure as the Chief Secretary's. 

At this stage of his career Mr. Labouchere was not a 
Home Ruler. In his first speech to his electors at North- 
ampton,^ he had said: "I really have not understood myself 
what Home Rule means. I should be exceedingly sorry to 
see the Union between Great Britain and Ireland done away 
with. I think it is absolutely necessary for the well-being 
of both countries, but I am myself in favour of as much 
local government, not only in Ireland, but in all parts of 
England as possible." He was voicing the views of Mr. 
Chamberlain, whose trumpet from the beginning had set 
forth no uncertain sound, for the member for Birmingham 
was then, and remained, unalterably opposed to the separa- 
tion of the two kingdoms, and to the institution of an 
Independent Parliament in Dublin. 

On January 27, Forster's Bill for the Protection of Life 
and Property in Ireland having been introduced three days 
previously, Mr. Labouchere, speaking in favour of an amend- 
ment introduced in his name to the effect "that no Bill for 

' Northampton Mercury, March 27, 1880. 



i68 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1881- 

the Protection of Life and Property in Ireland will be satis- 
factory which does not include protection to the tenant in 
cases where it can be shown, to the satisfaction of a Court 
of Justice, that the tenant's rent is excessive or that he is 
unable, owing to temporary circumstances, to pay it," said 
that, while he was a genuine supporter of the Prime Minister, 
he did not intend to rain down blessings on that gentleman's 
head that evening. He found himself occupying a singular 
position. He was returned there as a Radical by a very 
advanced constituency, and, to his surprise, he found himself 
almost alone with his colleague as an advocate of Conser- 
vatism in the real, though not in the party, sense of the word. 
He was there to defend the Habeas Corpus. He was ready 
to admit that Englishmen had many virtues, but they were 
somewhat intolerant, and they were curiously intolerant 
when any country under their rule ventured to have the 
same virtues as themselves. There was nothing they valued 
so highly as self-government, and yet, when Ireland asked for 
self-government in local matters, they regarded the demand 
as something monstrous and intolerable. The Chief Secretary 
had urged that the Bill must be passed as quickly as possible 
on account of outrages ! He must remember that there were 
such things as standing orders, and that honourable gentle- 
men opposite would be able to delay the Bill for a consider- 
able time. ... It was taking a really too Arcadian view 
of human nature to suppose that honourable gentlemen 
opposite would not use — or even misuse — every standing 
order of the House to prevent the passing of such a Bill. 
The right honourable gentleman seemed to have thought, 
in pleading urgency, that the Irish members would act like 
the "dilly, dilly ducks" which came to be killed when they 
were called. The reports of the outrages had come from 
magistrates most of whom were landowners, and from police 
constables; and they knew in England how to judge of 
constables' evidence. (Oh! oh!) He quoted a return. "In- 
jured persons were Margaret Lydon, Patrick Whalem, and 



i883] LABOUCHERE AND IRELAND 169 

Bridget Whalem. It appeared that : A dispute arose about 
the possession of a small plot of ground, and John Lydon 
assaulted the injured persons. Yet, in the very next case, 
John Lydon appeared as the injiu-ed person, because he was 
assaulted as the time of the above dispute by his own wife. 
This was obviously a little domestic difference between a 
husband and his spouse, yet it was converted into two 
separate outrages. As regarded cattle maiming, it was no 
new thing. Dean Swift jeered at his countrymen on the 
subject. 'Did they, like Don Quixote, look on a flock of 
sheep as an army?'" Labouchere wound up his speech, 
after pointing out the danger of the Chief Secretary's "hide- 
ous doctrine of constructive treason" and animadverting 
on the idea of making use of secret informers, whom he 
regarded as "the lowest, vilest, and most contemptible of 
the human race," by stating that the purpose of the Bill 
was not to suppress outrages or exclusive dealing, but solely 
to enable landlords to collect their rents. ^ Mr. Serjeant 
Simon retorted in his defence of the Bill, not quite unjustly 
perhaps, that Mr. Labouchere's speech had been more 
facetious than fair, more humorous than consistent. Cer- 
tainly the John Lydon mixed outrage was a hardly repre- 
sentative specimen of the statistics before the House. The 
O'Donoghue, on the other hand, had listened to the speech 
with great pleasure, and felt sure it would be received with 
satisfaction by a larger circle outside the constituency of 
Northampton when public opinion in England and Scotland 
came to be enlightened on this subject. Labouchere con- 
tinued to argue against the Bill in Committee in every 
imaginable way. Much of his argument was mere heckling 
of Mr. Forster. He was always a little inclined to confuse 
the floor of the House with the hustings, a state of mind 
which sometimes deprived his speeches of the persuasive 
value that their argumentative ability deserved. Every 
now and then he made a crushing point against the Govern- 
^ Hansard, Jan. 27, 1881, vol. 257. 



170 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1881- 

ment. "The Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt)," he 
said, "had incited a prejudice against the Land League by 
quoting what the Fenians had done in America. He had 
read a speech from a Mr. Devoy, an American Fenian, to 
the effect that he had contemplated blowing up the entire 
Government of this cotmtry , most of the towns in this country 
and the capital, and, is this monster, the Home Secretary 
had asked, to be allowed to say these things without protest? 
He had pointed out the terrible consequences of this speech : 
how a certain Patrick Stewart immediately subscribed the 
sum of one dollar that these intentions might be carried out. 
. . . Such men as Redpath (another American Fenian) and 
Devoy, the Right Honourable gentleman told them, would 
'come over to Ireland, and the Bill is intended for those 
gentlemen.' Surely," pursued Mr. Labouchere blandly, 
"the Right Honourable gentleman was an eminent author- 
ity on international law and must be aware that, if these 
Americans were to come over to Ireland, and if they were to 
be taken up on mere suspicion and put in prison for eighteen 
months without being told, or without their Minister in 
England being told, for what they were put in prison, we 
should get, and rightly too, into considerable difficulty with 
the American Government. (Sir William Harcourt: No!) 
The Right Honourable gentleman said no. Perhaps he 
meant that he would get us out of the difficulty. But 
would it not have been better to have brought in an Aliens 
Bill than to suspend the Habeas Corpus in Ireland? It was 
a strange thing to suspend the Habeas Corpus in Ireland, 
because an American had made a speech in America."^ 
This characteristic speech is a very good specimen of Labou- 
chere's method in attack. His manner was one of irre- 
sponsible persiflage, stinging and exasperating those of his 
opponents whom it failed to amuse, ^ his matter both sound 
and serious. It woiild have been difficult to have summed up 

^Hansard, Feb. 25, 1881, vol. 258. 

' To their credit, be it said, they generally were amused. 



i883] LABOUCHERE AND IRELAND 171 

Forster's Bill better than Labouchere did in the following 
list of "Alleged advantages and real disadvantages of the 
Bill." (i) Alleged advantages: (a) it would drive a certain 
number of crazy Fenians out of Ireland, (b) It would lead 
to the imprisonment of certain village ruffians who probably 
deserve it. (c) It would enable landlords to collect their 
rents. (2) Disadvantages: (a) It would do away with the 
useful action of the Land League, (b) It would enable the 
landlords not only to collect their rents from men who could 
pay them, but also to evict from their small holdings men 
who could not — the very thing the Land League had been 
preventing, (c) It would alienate all classes in Ireland from 
the English connection, (d) It would substitute secret 
societies for the open society called the Land League, (e) 
The Government would be playing into the hands of the 
Fenians, who would acquire an influence they did not then 
possess. Certainly it would have been difficult to prophesy 
more accurately what were the actual consequences of the 
passing of the Coercion Bill. He concluded his speech on 
this occasion by warning the Irish members not to persevere 
in a policy of obstruction, both on account of the prejudice 
it created against them and on account of the excellence of 
their cause.' Let that cause be stated fairly and honestly 
to the English people — let it be allowed to stand on its own 
merits. He believed many people in England were already 
very much inclined to take the same view as many Irishmen 
on Irish matters. There were many points on which the 
democracy of England and Ireland ought to unite. He 
therefore hoped that honourable gentlemen opposite would 
not be carried away by the irritation of the moment. He 
hated the Coercion Bill as much as they did, but he could not 
shut his eyes to the fact that the Liberals, not the Conserva- 
tives, had done the best for Ireland, and he wound up with a 
eulogy in this connection of the "two patron saints of my 
poHtical calendar " — Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright. ^ 

' Hansard. Feb. 25, 1881, vol. 258. 



172 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1881- 

The Arms Bill — or the Peace Preservation Bill, as it was 
called — by which the Coercion Bill was promptly followed, 
was another target for Mr. Labouchere's darts. He pointed 
out the suspicious nature of the support given by the Opposi- 
tion to the Government, which delayed the introduction of 
Liberal legislation for England and widened the breach 
between the Liberal party and the Irish. 

Perhaps the most serious and immediate consequence 
of the Coercion Act was the arrest of Parnell, which took 
place on October 13. This event, which caused frenzied 
joy in England, was one of Forster's worst mistakes in 
Ireland. The Land League at once issued a "No rent" 
manifesto. It was signed by Parnell, Dillon, Sexton, and 
Brennan, who were all in Kilmainham Gaol, and Egan, the 
treasurer of the League at Paris. Forster, not sorry to be 
able to do so, retorted by proclaiming the League an illegal 
association, the legality of which proceeding was doubtful, 
according to Lord Eversley. It had been impossible to con- 
vict the League of a violation of the law and the Coercion 
Act contained no clause authorising its suppression. On 
the other hand, the " No rent " manifesto was also an obvious 
blunder. The clergy denounced it from every altar in 
Ireland, as indeed they could hardly help doing, and only 
in the west, where large bodies of the poorer tenants were 
already refusing to pay their rents without deduction, did 
it take effect. The agrarian war was consequently intensi- 
fied, and English opinion greatly incensed. The local heads 
of the League were arrested all over the disturbed areas, 
and the Coercion Act pressed into the service of landlords 
to enable them to collect their rents, no matter how excessive 
they might be. Evictions were naturally multiplied. Most 
serious consequence of all — and directly traceable to the 
ill-advised arrest of Parnell and the leaders of the Land 
League — secret societies, with their inevitable accompani- 
ment of crime and outrage, began to take the place of open 
and, at least relatively, constitutional agitation. Parnell 



i883] LABOUCHERE AND IRELAND 173 

had been asked by an admirer, who would take his place in 
case of his arrest. " Captain Moonlight will take my place," 
was his grim reply. Captain Moonlight did so. During 
the months preceding the passing of the Coercion Act there 
were seven homicides, twenty-one cases of firing at the 
person, and sixty-two of firing into dwellings. 

The work of the suppressed Land League was carried on 
by the Ladies' Land League under the presidency of Parnell's 
sister. The ladies, if they did not actually stimulate crime, 
did little to suppress it. When Parnell eventually emerged 
from Kilmainham, he was furious with them, both on 
account of their policy and their extravagance. Outrages 
had increased, and they had spent £70,000 during the seven 
months of his incarceration ! 

The Coercion Act had evidently failed to produce the 
results expected. Nevertheless, Forster and Lord Cowper 
could think of nothing but more coercion. Gladstone 
refused to accede to their proposals. He had never liked 
coercion himself, and his hands were strengthened by the 
support of Chamberlain in the Cabinet, who was energeti- 
cally backed in the press by John Morley, then editing the 
Pall Mall Gazette. Meanwhile Parnell, realising that his 
prolonged detention at Kilmainham was damaging his cause, 
entered into negotiations with the Government by means of 
Captain O'Shea; and although Mr. Gladstone was, no doubt, 
literally truthful in denying the existence of any formal 
" treaty," an imderstanding was reached between the Govern- 
ment and the Irish leader. The main source of unrest and 
disorder in the coimtry was, according to Parnell, the smaller 
tenants, some 100,000 in number, who were utterly unable 
to pay the arrears of rent due from them, and were, in con- 
sequence, liable at any moment to eviction. The Govern- 
ment must deal in a generous and statesmanlike way with 
the lot of these unhappy people. Parnell, if free to resume 
an effective leadership, would be able to do much to curb 
the criminal forces set in motion by the secret societies. 



174 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1881- 

On May 2, Pamell and his companions were released from 
Kilmainham, and Forster and Lord Cowper at once resigned. 

Forster made his statement in the House on May 4. 
It was to the effect that the state of the country did not 
justify the release of Parnell without a new Coercion Act. 
Just as he had uttered the following words, "There are two 
warrants which I signed in regard to the member for the 
City of Cork — " Parnell entered the House. It was a 
dramatic scene. Deafening cheers broke from the Irish 
benches, drowning Forster's voice and preventing the con- 
clusion of the sentence from being heard. Parnell quickly 
surveyed the situation, and, bowing to the Speaker, passed 
"with head erect and measured tread to his place, the victor 
of the House." 

Mr, Gladstone answered Forster, saying that the cir- 
cumstances which had warranted Parnell's arrest no longer 
existed, and that "he had an assurance that if the Govern- 
ment dealt with the arrears question, the three members 
released would range themselves on the side of law and 
order." Parnell then intervened, saying that he had in no 
way suggested any bargain with the Prime Minister, but 
that there could be no doubt that a settlement of the arrears 
question would have an enormous effect in the restoration of 
law and order, and would take away the last excuse for outrage. 

Irish prospects had not looked brighter in the House for 
many a year, but, unfortunately, only two days after the 
memorable afternoon on which Mr. Gladstone dissociated 
himself from his sometime Irish Minister and threw himself 
into Parnell's arms, England was horrified by a terrible 
tragedy. Lord Spencer and Lord Frederick Cavendish had 
been appointed to the vacant offices of Lord Cowper and 
Mr. Forster. The new Chief Secretary and Mr. Burke, 
permanent Under-Secretary, were murdered close to the 
Vice-regal Lodge in Phoenix Park, on the evening following 
Lord Spencer's state entry into Dublin. Mr. O'Brien, in 
his Life of Parnell, says that "Cavendish was killed simply 



i883] LABOUCHERE AND IRELAND 175 

through the accident of his being with Mr. Burke, whose 
death was the real object of the assassins."^ No one was 
more overwhelmed by the tragedy than Parnell himself. 
''How can I," he said, "carry on a public agitation if I am 
stabbed in the back in this way?" 

The House met on the 8th, and Parnell made a short, 
straightforward speech, condemning the outrages in im- 
qualified terms. He also expressed the fear that the Govern- 
ment would feel themselves obliged, under the circumstances, 
to revert to coercion. His fear was justified, and on May 1 1 , 
the Home Secretary, Sir William Harcourt, introduced a 
Crimes Bill, based on previous suggestions of Lord Cowper. 

•It is easy to see now that this proceeding was a mistake. 
It should have been evident to any unbiassed observer that, 
far from Parnell and the League being responsible for out- 
rages, whether agrarian or political, it was during the im- 
prisonment of Parnell and after the dissolution of the League 
that they increased and finally led up to the tragedy of 
Phoenix Park. But the Government had to count with 
English opinion, which was exasperated by the murder of 
Burke and Cavendish almost to the point of hysteria. To 
most English people Ireland was little more than a geo- 
graphical expression ; in so far as it connoted anything else, 
it bored and disgusted them. Parnell indicated the true 
inwardness of Mr. Gladstone's altered attitude in a speech 
on May 20, in which he said: "I regret that the event in 
Phoenix Park has prevented him (Mr. Gladstone) continuing 
the course of conciliation that we had expected from him. 
I regret that, owing to the exigencies of his party, of his 
position in the country, he has felt himself compelled to turn 
from that course of conciliation and concession into the 
horrible paths of coercion." 

Labouchere took Mr. Pamell's view of the situation, 
and argued with much zest against the worst features of the 
Crimes Bill. Speaking on May 18, on the second reading, 

' R, Barry O'Brien, Lije of Parnell. 



176 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1881- 

he said that it was clear from the fact that the House was 
now asked to pass a remedial measure (the Arrears Bill) and 
a Coercion Bill that the former policy of the Government 
had been a failure. 

But the present Coercion Bill erred precisely in the same 
direction that the other had done, because it was not aimed 
solely at outrage, but was directed at honourable members 
sitting opposite. In fact he (Mr. Labouchere) could see the 
trail of the honourable member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. 
Forster) and of his policy in this measure. The Government 
ought to try to get the majority of the Irish people on their 
side to fight with them against outrage. Was this Bill 
likely to enlist the sympathies of the Irish members? Mr. 
Labouchere expressed the principle of his objection to the 
Bill by saying that as long as political and criminal elements 
were mixed up in the Bill he could not vote for it. He 
objected particularly to the following features. The "intimi- 
dation clause" went too far, being directed against boycot- 
ting, which^ although it had its bad features, was, as a system 
of exclusive trading, legitimate. He considered it "mon- 
strous" that the authorities should have power to detain any 
person out after sunset. He objected to the clause dealing 
with the press, and he thought that three years was too long 
a period for the Bill to remain in force. Who could say who 
might be Lord- Lieutenant in three years? He could not 
imagine anything more horrible than that, say, the right 
honourable gentleman the member for North Lincolnshire 
(Mr. J. Lowther) should be invested with the powers of the 
Bill. The consequence would perhaps be, that if the Prime 
Minister went over to Ireland, he would be arrested and put 
into prison. His admiration for the Prime Minister was 
increasing, but all his colleagues were not as well minded as 
himself. There seemed to be two currents in the cabinet — 
some members who desired to do all they could for Ireland 
being baulked by those of their colleagues called Whigs.' 

^Hansard, May 14, 1881. 



i883] LABOUCHERE AND IRELAND 177 

Mr. Labouchere worked out of Parliament, as well as in, 
for the improvement of the Bill. He was incessantly nego- 
tiating both with the Government and the Irish leaders to 
defeat what he felt to be its impossible features and to modify 
the remaining ones in the direction of conciliation. He had 
written two days before the speech just mentioned to Mr. 
Chamberlain as follows: 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, May 16, 1882. 

Dear Chamberlain, — I enclose Bill with Healy's amend- 
ments. He says that what he means in the suggested changes 
in the Intimidation Clause is, that only a person who actually 
threatens a person with injury should come under the provisions 
of the Bill. What he objects to is constructive intimidation. 

I went through the Bill thus amended with Pamell. He 
agrees with them in the main, but would like to have the opinion 
of a lawyer with regard to them. Like Healy, his chief objection 
is to constructive intimidation. He says that if the Government 
will meet him and his party in the conciliatory spirit of the 
amendments, he will promise that the opposition to the Bill shall 
be conducted on honest Parliamentary lines, and that there shall 
be no abstention. He specially urges that the Bill shall only be 
in operation until the close of next session; he puts this on two 
grounds: (i) That the Tories may possibly come in at the end 
of that time. (2) That he may be able to advise the Irish to be 
quiet in the hopes of no renewal of the Bill. 

He says that he is in a very difficult position between the 
Government and the secret societies. The latter, he says, are 
more numerous than are supposed ; that most of those connected 
with them only wish to be let alone, but that he greatly fears that 
if they are disgusted they will commit outrages. The late 
murders, he seems to think, were, when agrarian, the acts of men 
who had a grudge against a particular individual, and, when 
political, the acts of skirmishers from America. I really think 
that he is most anxious to be able to support the Government; 
he ftdly admits that a Bill is necessary on account of English 
opinion, but he does not wish to have it applied to himself, and 
he doubts whether it will be really effectual against the outrage 
mongers. 



178 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1881- 

Healy goes so far as to say that if the Prime Minister or you 
were to administer the Bill it would do no harm, and that he is 
not greatly afraid of it in the hands of Lord Spencer, but that it 
would be a monstrous weapon of oppression in the hands of Jim 
Lowther. I am sure that with conciliation you can now, for 
the first time, get the Parnellites on your side. 

This letter Mr. Chamberlain sent to Mr. Gladstone, 
promising to bring the draft of the Bill to the House that 
afternoon. 

Mr. Labouchere continued to Mr. Chamberlain on the 
following day: 

He (Healy) points out that even the Conservative news- 
papers are against the Newspaper Clause, and he wants it made 
applicable only to newspapers printed out of Ireland. With 
regard to the Search Clause, he will make a fight for nominative 
warrants, and he also wants an amendment securing an indemnity 
in case of injury done to property by the searchers. He points 
out that there ought to be a right of appeal from the County 
Court Judge to the Queen's Bench. With respect to the Intimi- 
dation Clause, he seems to approve of cutting out the definition 
clause, but is very anxious for some restriction in the terms of 
the clause, so that there may be no crime of constructive intimi- 
dation. 

There is to be a private meeting at one to-morrow of himself, 
Parnell, T. P. O'Connor, and Sexton. He wiU say to them that 
he thinks that Government will agree to the County Court 
Judges and to the period of the Bill being shortened. He will, 
however, before the meeting, go further into details as regards 
the position with Parnell. He is most desirous that there should 
be no plea for saying that there is a bargain of any kind. I have 
told him that, in the Prime Minister, they have a friend, but that 
they must take into consideration his position as the leader of a 
Government where possibly all are not as well disposed, and as 
the head of a country where there is a popular outcry for stringent 
measures. 

On May 22, he wrote again, after a further interview 
with Parnell: 



i883] LABOUCHERE AND DUELAND 179 

This is about the sum total of what Pamell took an hour to 
tell me. He does not in the least complain of you, and really is 
most anxious to get on with the Government if possible. He 
wants me to let him know as soon as possible to-morrow whether 
he is to consider that there is to be no concession. 

Parnell says : That the Arrears Bill has been very well received 
in Ireland, and that, if it be followed by one making certain 
modifications of no very important character in the Land Bill, 
he is convinced that the situation will greatly improve, provided 
that concessions be made in the Coercion Bill. 

He suggests that the Coercion and the Arrears Bill move 
forward pari passu, and that only small progress be made with 
the Coercion Bill before Whitsuntide, in order to give time 
for the passions to cool, and for persons to see by experience that 
the condition of Ireland is not so bad as is supposed. 

If urgency is to be voted on the Coercion Bill, he asks that 
it should be voted by a simple majority, and that it should be 
stated that it will be used whenever any Legislative measures in 
regard to Ireland are brought forward during the Session and 
obstructed by the Conservatives. 

He greatly regrets the speech of Davitt, but says that he 
(Davitt) has no intention to go to Ireland, and that his land 
scheme is a little fad of his own. 

He says that he is most anxious for a modus vivendi, and be- 
lieves that if the present opportunity for establishing one be let 
pass, it is not likely to recur. He and his friends, he says, are 
incurring the serious risk of assassination in their efforts to bring 
it about, and he thinks that his suggestions ought to be judged on 
their merits, but that, with the Coercion Act as it is, there will 
be so much anger and ill-feeling in Ireland, that all alliance with 
the Liberal party will be impossible. 

He points out, not as a matter of bargain, but as a fact, that 
the Liberals may — if only there be concessions on the Coercion 
Bill, and a few modifications in the Land Bill — count on the 
Irish vote, as against the Conservatives, and suggests that this 
will make the Government absolutely safe, even though there 
be Whig defections. 

Mr. Labouchere continued, as will be seen by the fol- 



l8o HENRY LABOUCHERE [1881- 

lowing letters to Mr. Chamberlain, to press the views of the 
Irish leaders upon the Government. 



10 Queen Anne's Gate, June 3, 1882. 

Dear Chamberlain, — We have done our best during your 
absence to hold our own against Harcourt. The only important 
issue yet raised has been the exclusion of treason and treason 
felony from the Bill. 

On Thursday I went to Grosvenor from Parnell to ask that 
the debate should be adjourned. Gladstone said that Parnell 
ought to consider that after Harcourt's "no surrender" speech 
the Government would not be able to give in the next day, and 
that the division if taken would be larger on Thursday than on 
Friday, and that the matter might be reconsidered in Report. 
I said that if Government would give any private assurance, or 
if Gladstone would say in the House, that the exclusion would be 
favourably considered on Report, he could have the division at 
once. This latter he was afraid to do, for Harcourt, as sulky as 
a bear, was glaring at him. He therefore agreed to consent 
"with regret" to the adjournment. When, however, Parnell 
moved it, our idiots and the Conservatives shouted so loudly 
"no," that a division had to be taken. Then Healy moved it, 
on which Gladstone did hint at the Report, but said nothing 
definite, except that it would be impossible to consult at once 
with the Irish Executive. The next day, Grosvenor wrote to me 
to say that he spoke without prejudice and held out no hope, but 
would I call "Parnell's attention to one sentence in one of Glad- 
stone's concluding speeches, which was to the effect that it was 
impossible to call the attention of the Irish Government to the 
question of omitting treason and treason felony, between last 
night and this day, and therefore it would be better to bring up 
the question again on Report. Please ask Parnell to consider 
this fact." 

On Friday morning the Irish held a meeting, and they agreed 
to keep what they did secret, decided that if treason were retained, 
at least treason felony should be eliminated. 

On the House meeting Trevelyan tackled me, and said: "I 
am opposed to the insertion of treason and treason felony, and 



1883] LABOUCHERE AND IRELAND 181 

I am disposed to make large concessions. You know that I am 
a person of strong will. I now understand the Bill, and you will 
see how I shall act." 

Grosvenor also said that I need not believe him, as he 
quite agreed with me, but that Harcourt was the difficulty. 
I asked him whether he would agree that if Lord Spencer said 
that treason and treason felony were not needed, they should 
be struck out on Report. He replied that the onus could not 
be thrown on Spencer, but that it must be the act of the 
Cabinet. 

So after seeing Parnell it was agreed that the division should 
be taken at 7.30. 

Why Parnell is making such a fight over this, and will make 
a fight over the Intimidation Clause, is that unless concession be 
made, he will find it difficult to hold his own. Egan, he says, 
wants to carry on the agitation from Paris, in which case it will 
be illegal ; he wants to carry it on in Dublin, in which case it will 
be legal. If concessions are made he will have his way; if not, 
Egan will remain the master in Paris. 

. Grosvenor quite admits that it is most desirable to aid Parnell 
to remain leader. 

Parnell says: 

"I ask, in order to put an end definitely to the land agitation: 
that a clause should be introduced into the Arrears Bill, allowing 
small tenants in the Land Court to pay on Griffiths' valuation 
until their cases are decided: that there should be an expansion 
of the Bright Clauses next year if not this; and that a Royal 
Commission be appointed to keep the agricultural labourers 
quiet by taking evidence. Then I propose to ask for a fair and 
reasonable measure of local self-government, such as an English 
Government can grant," and he assures me that in all questions 
between me and the Conservatives and the Liberals, the latter 
shall have the Irish vote. I believe that he is perfectly sincere, 
and that he is thoroughly frightened by threats of assassination; 
indeed he told me that he never went about without a revolver 
in his pocket, and even then did not feel safe. 

I write you all this for your private information, as you may 
wish to know the exact situation at present. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 



i82 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1881- 

Reform Club, June 8, 1882. 

Dear Chamberlain, — Parnell says that it is absolutely- 
necessary that something should be understood, and that if no 
concession be made on the Intimidation Clause, he considers 
that things revert to where they were under the Forster regime, 
and that they will fight until urgency is voted and then fight on 
urgency until a coup d'etat is carried out. Allowing for some 
exaggeration, a simple consideration of his position towards his 
party shows that this programme is necessarily forced upon him. 

Surely we have a right to see the clause as Government will 
agree to it, before passing a portion of it. 

I believe that this would be agreed to ; that intimidation shall 
mean any threats, etc., to violence, any boycotting which involves 
danger such, for instance, as a doctor refusing to attend a sick 
man, or a refusal to supply the necessaries of life, and any specific 
act that is set out in the Bill, but nothing more. 

C. Russell, Bryce, and Davy are trying their hands at this ^ 
and hope to be able to frame a clause on these lines. You will 
no doubt see that, if something cannot be done to-morrow, the 
fat will be in the fire. Would it not therefore be well to leave 
the clause until the other clauses "are passed, and then bring it on? 
— Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, June 9, 1882. 

Dear Chamberlain, — I wrote you a line in a great hurry 
last night, but after the House had adjourned I again saw Parnell. 

He is most anxious that Mr. Gladstone should not think 
that obstruction arises from any ill-feeling towards him, and 
that he does not, in his own interests, wish it to be thought that 
anything in the nature of a bargain is to be made. 

But he wants Mr. Gladstone to know facts. He says that 
there are two sections in the Land League. The funds of the 
League are at Paris, where a large sum is invested in securities. 
Egan wishes to trench on these securities, but Parnell and Davitt 
have been able to stop this, and at present nothing is expended 
but the weekly contributions. Egan and his section of the 
League are furious at the idea of the League being converted 
into a moderate tenant right Association, with its headquarters 



i883] LABOUCHERE AND IRELAND 183 

in Dublin. This he desires. Every day the ultras of his party 
are telling him that nothing is gained by conciliation. If the 
Bill is to be passed in its present shape, he declares that neither 
he nor his friends can have anything to do with a moderate policy, 
and, as they absolutely decline to associate themselves with 
Egan and his desperate courses, they must withdraw. 

The result, he says, will be that the Fenians will be masters 
of the situation, that they will have funds, and that there will be 
assassinations and outrages all over Ireland. So soon as he 
withdraws, he considers that his own life will not be worth a day's 
purchase. 

If he is able to head the tenant right Association, he considers 
that he can crush out the Fenians — more especially if something 
is done in the Arrears Bill to meet the difficulty of the small 
tenants, who are waiting for their cases to be decided on in the 
Land Courts, being evicted, before their cases come on, for non- 
payment of excessive rents. If nothing be done in this matter, 
and if he be allowed to have his tenant right Association, this he 
says will be his great difficulty next winter. He wishes Mr. 
Gladstone to observe that Davitt has not made any speeches in 
Ireland, and he says that he obtained this pledge from him in 
order to show the result of conciliation. He disagrees entirely 
with Davitt's "nationalisation" of land scheme, and says that 
the Irish tenants do not themselves desire it. 

He again suggests whether it would not be possible to insert 
limitations in the Intimidation Clause? And he would suggest 
that, if possible, it would be desirable to leave the clause as it 
stands, without any definition section, and to say that, as there 
is no desire to prevent an orderly and legal tenant right Associa- 
tion, additions will be made to the clause on Report, defining 
all this. 

As regards the tribunal, he hopes that Mr. Gladstone will 
agree to a proviso, making the Court consist of a magistrate 
and a barrister. This he thinks will render it more easy to accept 
the intimidation clause with the limitations that he suggests, for 
many of the resident magistrates are half -pay captains, who have 
been appointed by interest, and who are hand in glove with the 
landlords, and some of them are certain to act foolishly. 

If this be accepted, if unlawful associations are made there 



i84 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1881- 

which the Lord Lieutenant declares to be unlawful; if it be made 
a crime to not attend an unlawful assembly, but to riot at, or to 
refuse to retire if called upon to do so from an unlawful assembly, 
I do not think that he attaches very great importance to the 
duration of the Act, although he still says that he does, but he 
would be satisfied if the duration of the Act were for three years 
with the proviso that the Lord Lieutenant has to prolong it (if it 
is prolonged) by a proclamation at the end of each year. He is 
anxious for this, because he thinks that he could do much for the 
cause of law and order, if he were able to point out that possibly 
the Act would not run for the whole three years, if the Irish are 
quiet and peaceable. 

His main anxiety at the present moment seems to be, that 
Mr. Gladstone should understand the position of the Land League 
and of its leaders. He wishes most sincerely to fight with the 
Government against all outrages, and he complains that his good 
intentions are met every moment by a non possumus of lawyers, 
who seem to regard it as a matter of amour propre not to listen 
to him, and he says (and I am sure he believes it) that the result 
will be murders and outrages which will end in martial law. — 
Yours truly, H. Labouchere. 

P.S. — With regard to supply, he says that he thinks it a 
little hard, that he should be asked not to obstruct one Bill, 
because the Conservatives will obstruct another, and he suggests 
that Supply might be taken before the Report on the Bill now 
under discussion, with some sort of understanding that the Irish 
would not put down notices on going into Committee of Supply. 
But on this matter, he says that he is certain that if Mr. Glad- 
stone will fairly look into his suggestions, he will see their force, 
and he still hopes that all obstruction, etc., etc., may be avoided. 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, June 10, 1882. 

Dear Chamberlain, — As it seems to be understood that 
Harcourt had stated in the House his readiness to accept the 
amendment which I gave you yesterday, Healy has put it down. 

As regards "unlawful," which was negatived last night, I 
explained to Healy that it was impossible to make the limitation 
on account of legal and technical difficulties, and he fully accepted 
this explanation. 



1883] LABOUCHERE AND IRELAND 185 

With regard to the two hmitations which stand in Parnell's 
name, and which they ask for, I told Healy that the wording 
of the limitations could not be used, as it would have a bad effect 
to say in an Act that the non-payment of rent is not an offence. 
To this he assented, and is quite ready to accept any words, 
taken from the Act of '75 or from anywhere else, which will 
cover the limitations. Would it not be as well to have the 
words ready, and to let Parnell have them, or at least to be 
ready with the substituted words when Parnell's amendment 
comes on? 

There is a clause about exclusive dealing. When the sugges- 
tions which I submitted to you were being discussed by Parnell 
and Healy, they were very anxious to include Davy's amend- 
ment in regard to exclusive dealing, substituting for "dealing 
with" — "buying," by which they would have excluded a refusal 
to buy from Boycotting. I got them to say that this was not to 
be pressed if Government declined to accept the amendment, so 
I did not trouble you with it. Late last evening Parnell wanted 
to insist on it, so I appealed to Healy. He said that they were 
bound not to insist on more than had been submitted to you, as 
this would not be honourable, and therefore all trouble on this 
head is avoided. 

Of course they will in the House divide on some amendment 
in regard to exclusive dealing, as a protest, and they may make 
one or two speeches, but there will be no obstruction, and I see 
no reason why the Bill should not be through Committee (not- 
withstanding Goschen's gloomy prognostications) in a few days. 

It would, I think, very much tend to aid matters if Harcourt 
could in the course of discussion state, that in all cases a barrister 
will sit with a residential magistrate. He has already said that 
there wiU be an appeal to Quarter Sessions, which in Ireland 
means an appeal to the County Court Judge. But some of the 
residential magistrates are very fooHsh persons, and all are 
regarded as men in the landlords' camp. 

Also, is it not possible to arrive at some clear definition as to 
what is an unlawful association? Parnell says that it is left now 
to any residential magistrate to decide the matter. He suggests 
that only such associations shall be unlawful, for the purpose of 
the Act, which are proclaimed as such by the Lord Lieutenant. 



i86 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1881- 

But provided that there be a clear definition, he does not care 
for any particular wording. 

Parnell and Healy request me to say that they are very grate- 
ful to Mr. Gladstone for meeting them half-way, and they seem 
only now anxious about "treason felony." As Herschell told me 
that he thinks everything necessary will be covered by the 
word "treason," I hope that this matter will also be settled satis- 
factorily. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

P.S. — Parnell would not like any one but you and Mr. 
Gladstone to know about his dispute with Egan, and the embargo 
on the League funds, except in a very general way. 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, June 24, 1882. 

Dear Chamberlain, — I saw Parnell, and spoke to him as you 
wished. 

His answer is practically this : 

"I acknowledge that Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Chamberlain 
have acted fairly, and so far as I can I should always be ready to 
meet their wishes. But I deny that we have obtained the con- 
cessions that we expected. I am not prepared to go back to 
Ireland and engage in bringing the agitation within constitutional 
limits, on the mere chance of Lord Spencer not arresting me. 
The Fenians want one thing: the Ladies' League another: the 
people in Paris (Egan) another: and I another. Therefore I 
shall limit my action to Parliament and leave the Government 
and the Fenians to fight it out in Ireland. The Cabinet do not 
seem to realise that the Crimes Bill is a very complex one, and 
very loosely drawn up. There has been no obstruction in the 
proper sense of the word, although I admit that the Irish have 
repeated again and again the same arguments on amendments. 
But this I cannot help, unless I tell them that they will get some- 
thing by holding their tongues. When the Conservatives threat- 
ened obstruction on Procedure, this was met by telling them that 
the majority resolution would not be pressed if they would 
facilitate business. Why should not the same arrangement be 
made with us? Let us know what amendments will be accepted 
in future. I am most anxious to carry out what I understood 
was the contemplated policy when I was released from Kilmain- 



i883] LABOUCHERE AND IRELAND 187 

ham, and to work with the Government in bringing the^ active 
phase of Irish agitation to a close. But this I cannot do if I am 
suspected of ulterior objects, and if I cannot show that something 
is gained for my party." 

He then suggested that if the Government would take their 
November Session for alterations in the Land Act, he would do 
his best to facilitate business now in regard to the Crimes, and 
the Arrears Bill, and the Procedure Resolutions, provided that 
the majority Resolution were maintained. 

I asked him what he really wanted under the term of altera- 
tions in the Land Act? 

He said: "To go back to the system of reductions in rent 
which was acted on before the Stuart Donleathcase, and to extend 
the Bright clauses in the sense of W. H. Smith's resolution." 

Finally, I again urged him to remember what Mr. Gladstone 
and you had done for him already, and to see whether he could 
not manage to bring the Committee Stage of the Bill to an end 
within a reasonable time. 

On Monday, Sexton proposes to cut Chaplin out by bringing 
forward a resolution about the suspects. Parnell says that this 
is absolutely necessary, because he and his friends are blamed for 
only caring for their own release. But Sexton will say that he 
only does this, because it is a choice between his resolution and 
Chaplin's, and there will be no talking to hinder the Government 
from getting their money, or with the object of obstructing. 

I have got to go to Northampton on Monday, so I shall not 

be in the House until late.— Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

When the Crimes Act was finally passed, Mr. Labouchere 
expressed himself in Truth as follows: 

When Mr. Parnell was released from Kilmainham, it was 
understood that the Land Act would be amended, that evictions 
would be stopped by an Arrears Bill, and that the leaders of the 
land movement would be permitted to agitate within fair legal 
limits in favour of the poHtical and social changes desired by their 
countrymen. Had this understanding been carried out, the breach 
between the Parnellites and the Liberals would have been healed. 



l88 HENRY LABOUCHERE [i88i- 

Mr. Forster was the first to perceive that as a result of a modus 
Vivendi he would have to disappear with his policy of coercion. He 
therefore resigned, in the hope that this would render it impossi- 
ble to carry out the Kilmainham compact. Then followed the 
murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish. The horror which this 
created was skilfully used by the Whigs in the Cabinet, and they 
succeeded in promoting a Bill, not so much aimed at outrages as 
at the Kilmainham compact. This Bill is a complete codifica- 
tion of arbitrary rule. It places the lives, liberties, and property 
of the Irish in the hands of the Executive, and seeks to suppress 
every species of political" agitation. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Trevelyan was awaiting his re-election 
when it was introduced, and it was left to Sir William Harcourt 
to carry it through the House of Commons. Of course, as Sir 
William is the head-centre of the Whigs, he delighted in his task. 
Not only did he refuse every modification of the Bill, except 
those which were rendered absolutely necessary by the absurd 
way in which it was drawn, but almost every day he envenomed 
discussion by transpontine outbursts against the Irish members. 
I do not blame him. I blame no one who plays his cards to his 
own best advantage. This is human nature. Sir William knew 
that if the English Radicals and the Irish were allied, he and his 
Whigs would lose all influence, whilst of Ireland he knew ab- 
solutely nothing. 

The result, therefore, has been that the Whigs triumph, and 
that several weeks have been wasted in passing a Bill which will 
do nothing to hinder outrages, but which will simply increase 
the ill-feeling between England and Ireland. 

If the leaders of the land movement are wise, they will not 
endeavour to hold meetings. They should declare that public 
meeting has been rendered impossible by the Crimes Act ; and 
they should, as an act of charity, collect funds to aid all who 
have been evicted, no matter from what cause, and thus band 
the Irish tenants together in a friendly society. At the same time, 
they should devote all their energies to increase their numbers in 
the next Parliament, and they should submit test questions to 
every Liberal standing for an English constituency where there 
are Irish voters, and make these votes dependent upon the man- 
ner in which the questions are answered. If Mr. Parnell can 



1883] LABOUCHERE AND IRELAND 189 

hold the balance in Parliament between the rival aspirants for 
the Treasury Bench, he may be certain that any just demand 
that he may make will be granted. The democracy of England 
and Ireland, with Mr. Gladstone at their head, would make short 
work of Conservative and Whig obstructive trash. The land- 
lords in Ireland and the Whigs in England stand in the way of 
peace and tranquillity in the former island, and of mutual good 
feeling in both. ^ 

To quote Mr. Labouchere's views on Ireland during the 
dark and gloomy period which followed the introduction of 
the Prevention of Crimes Bill is to quote Mr. Chamberlain's, 
for, as is seen by their constant correspondence, the two 
were one in their views on Irish discontent. Mr. Chamber- 
lain made a speech at Swansea in February, 1883, in which 
he asked his audience how long they supposed Englishmen 
with their free institutions would tolerate the existence of 
an Irish Poland so near to their own shores. Was separa- 
tion the only alternative? He thought not. Separation, 
in his opinion, would "jeopardise the security of this country, 
and would be fatal to the prosperity and happiness of Ire- 
land." He, like Labouchere, was prepared to relax the bond, 
even by conceding what was then known as Home Rule, 
which would not include an independent Parliament or a 
separate executive.'' 

However, in 1883 ^^d 1884, Englishmen had other things 
to occupy their minds than the rights and wrongs of Ireland. 
In order to follow the political career of Mr. Labouchere 
we must for a time leave the Irish question and consider 
"the policy of Gladstone's Government in Egypt." 

^ Truth, Jtdy 6, 1882. ' S. H. Jeyes, Mr. Chamberlain. 



CHAPTER IX 

JLABOUCHERE AND MR. GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN 

POLICY 

LORD MORLEY has commented on the irony of fate 
■' which imposed on Mr. Gladstone the unwelcome task 
of Egyptian occupation. "It was one of the ironies," he 
says, "in which every active statesman's life abounds." 
Disparity between intentions and achievements is indeed 
inevitable in all departments of activity, but nowhere more 
so than in cases of what may be called creative policy. 
Destruction is easy. But a constructive policy which shall 
bring about a new and more favourable state of things, and 
may, therefore, in this sense be called creative, is strangely 
apt either to overshoot its mark or to deviate into unex- 
pected channels, with results wholly unlooked for by the 
statesman responsible for its conduct. 

Certainly this ironic force of circumstances was pecul- 
iarly apparent in the case of Mr. Gladstone's Egyptian 
policy. The problem of Egypt was not of his seeking, but 
was a legacy from the Tories. In 1875 Disraeli, against 
the advice of Lord Derby, his Foreign Minister, and without 
consulting the other members of his Cabinet, arranged with 
the London Rothschilds to purchase Khedive Ismail's 
shares in the Suez Canal for four millions sterling. Ismail, 
whose absolute reign of eighteen years had cost Egypt ^ no 
less a sum than four hundred millions sterling, had been 

' Wilfrid Sea wen Blunt, Secret History of the English Occupation of Egypt. 

190 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 191 

driven by his preposterous extravagance, and the consequent 
exhaustion of both his legitimate and illegitimate methods 
of procuring revenue, to look abroad for financial assistance. 
France, besides being crippled by the war of 1870, was 
regarded with suspicion in the matter of the canal, and the 
only alternative to France was England. A trifle like four 
milUons was very far from what Ismail really required to 
give any sort of financial stability to his government, and, 
after the loan with Rothschild had been negotiated, the 
British Cabinet sent out a series of commissioners to study 
the state of affairs on the spot, and to see what could be done 
in the interests of Egyptian rule and, incidentally, of the 
foreign bondholders. Eventually a settlement of Ismail's 
affairs, known as the Goschen-Joubert arrangement, was 
made, by which the enormous yearly payment of nearly 
seven millions sterling was charged on the Egyptian revenue. 
Greek usurers attended the tax-gatherers on their rounds, 
and the ruined fellaheen were forced to mortgage their lands 
to meet these amazing demands. Even such methods failed 
of success owing to the famine of the two preceding years. 
The obviously juster course was now to let Ismail become 
bankrupt and abandon the Goschen-Joubert arrangement, 
but the foreign bondholders were naturally opposed to this, 
and pointed out reasonably enough that the English Govern- 
ment had guaranteed the loan. The moment was favour- 
able to their views. Dizzy had succeeded in converting his 
colleagues, with the exception of Derby, who retired and was 
succeeded by Lord Salisbury as Foreign Secretary, to his 
neo-Imperialism in which an Asiatic Empire imder British 
rule was an element. About this time, too, the secret con- 
vention relating to the lease of Cyprus was signed with the 
Porte. When, a month later, the Berlin Congress was 
called together, such was the suspicion with which the pleni- 
potentiaries regarded each other that each ambassador was 
obliged, before entering the Congress, to affirm that he 
was not bound by any secret engagement with the Porte. 



192 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

Disraeli and Salisbury both gave the required declaration. 
"It must be remembered," says Mr. Blunt indulgently, 
"that both were new to diplomacy." A few weeks later 
the Glohe published the text of the Cyprus Convention, 
bought by that journal from one Marvin, an Oriental scholar, 
who had been imprudently employed as translator of the 
Turkish text. In London the authenticity of the document 
was denied, but the truth had to come out at Berlin. The 
discovery almost broke up the Congress. Prince Gort- 
schakoff, the Russian representative, and M. Waddington, 
the Ambassador of France, both announced that they would 
withdraw at once from the sittings, and Waddington literally 
packed his trunks. It needed the cynical good offices of 
Bismarck to reconcile the English and the French pleni- 
potentiaries.' There were two very significant points on 
which agreement was reached : 

I. "That as a compensation to France for England's 
acquisition of Cyprus, France should be allowed on the 
first convenient opportunity, and without opposition from 
England, to occupy Tunis. 

' I have taken this account of the Cyprus Convention and its results at the 
Berlin Congress from Mr. Blunt's Secret History of the English Occupation of 
Egypt. He says in a footnote {op. cit., p. 277) : " I have given the story of the 
arrangement made with Waddington as I heard it first from Lord Lytton at 
Simla in May, 1879. The details were contained in a letter which he showed 
me written to him from Berlin, while the Congress was still sitting, by a former 
diplomatic colleague, and have since been confirmed to me from more than one 
quarter, though with variations. In regard to the main feature of the agree- 
ment, the arrangement about Tunis, I had it very plainly stated to me in the 
autumn of 1884 by Count Corti, who had been Italian Ambassador at the 
Congress. According to his account, the shock of the revelation to Disraeli 
had been so great that he took to his bed, and for four days did not appear at 
the sittings, leaving Lord Salisbury to explain matters as he best could. He 
said that there had been no open rupture with Waddington, the case having 
been submitted by Waddington to his fellow-ambassadors, who agreed that 
it was not one that could possibly be publicly disputed : II faut la guerre ou 
se taire. The agreement was a verbal one between Waddington and Salis- 
bury, but was recorded in a despatch subsequently written by the French 
Ambassador in London in which he reminded Salisbury of the Convention 
conversation held in Berlin, and so secured its acknowledgment in writing." 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 193 

2. "That in the financial arrangements being made in 
Egypt, France should march pari passu with England," 

This was the source of the Anglo-French condominium 
in Egypt. 

Sir Rivers Wilson, who was then acting in Egypt as 
English Commissioner, received instructions to see that 
France should be equally represented with England in all 
financial appointments made in connection with his inquiry. 
Wilson's appointment as English Commissioner on the 
nominally International Commission of Inquiry was almost 
the first signed by Lord Salisbury on taking over the Foreign 
Office from Lord Derby. He was a man from whom much 
was expected. In 1878 he was appointed Finance Minister 
in Egypt. His predecessor, Ismail Sadyk, had been treacher- 
ously murdered by the Khedive Ismail, but this fact did not 
dash his confidence. He had great faith in Nubar, Ismail's 
Prime Minister. His French education would, he thought, 
enable him to preserve the Anglo-French character of the 
Ministry. He also had behind him the full interest and 
power of the house of Rothschild, whom he had persuaded 
to advance the loan of nine millions, known as the Kedival 
Domains Loan. But his brief career as Finance Minister 
(the Nubar Ministry was overthrown in the February of 
1879) was a failure. It is the opinion of Mr. Blunt, and no 
one would have been more likely to know the true state of 
affairs, that the Khedive himself intrigued against him and 
that the internal policy of the country was entirely in the 
hands of Nubar, who, as a Christian, was at a disadvantage 
in governing a Mohammedan country, and in whose political 
value Wilson seems to have been greatly mistaken. The 
loan which he had negotiated did not relieve the taxpayer, 
but went in paying the more immediately urgent calls. His 
suggestion of a scheme which would have involved the 
confiscation by the Government of landed property to the 
value of fifteen millions disturbed the minds of the land- 
owners, and the mistakes of the Ministry reached their 



194 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

climax when the native army, including 2500 officers, was 
disbanded without receiving their arrears of pay. 

The fall of Nubar was brought about by the emeute of 
February, 1879, skilfully engineered by the Khedive, and 
Sir Rivers's position as Finance Minister became very 
difficult. The Consul-General Vivian (afterwards Lord 
Vivian) was a personal enemy of his and refrained from 
smoothing his path, and when, in March, the crafty Ismail 
arranged a little incident at Alexandria similar to that of 
February, the Foreign Office, instead of backing his demand 
for redress, advised him to resign, which he accordingly did. 
Soon, however, he was able to take a crushing revenge on the 
perfidious Ismail. On his return from Egypt he went straight 
to the Rothschilds and explained to them that their money 
was in great danger, as the Khedive intended to repudiate 
the debt, sheltering himself behind the excuse of constitu- 
tional government. The Rothschilds brought financial pres- 
sure to bear first on Downing Street and the Quai d' Orsay. 
Their efforts in these quarters being iii vain, they applied 
to Bismarck, who was, perhaps, not sorry to have an ex- 
cuse to state the intention of the German Government to 
intervene in the bondholders* interests in case the French 
and English Governments were unable to do so. German 
intervention would have been a quite unendurable solution, 
and the Sultan was at once approached from London and 
Paris and begged to depose his vassal. European pressure 
was too much for him, and, in spite of the many millions 
which he had paid in bribery to the Porte, Ismail received 
a curt notice from Sir Frank Lascelles, then acting EngHsh 
diplomatic agent in Egypt, that a telegram had reached 
him from the Sultan announcing that his viceregal duties 
had passed to his son Tewfik. Ismail cleared the treasury 
of its current account and retired with a final spoil of some 
three millions sterling. No one hindered his departiire. 

For a few months after Mr. Gladstone formed his second 
administration things seemed to have quieted down in 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 195 

Egypt. The new Khedive was a weak character and the 
country was practically governed by French and English 
Ministers in the Cabinet. Sir Evelyn Baring (afterwards 
Lord Cromer) and M. de Blaquieres worked together in 
perfect harmony. Sir Evelyn Baring had originally come 
to Egypt as Commissioner of the Debt, and had worked so 
successfully towards a new settlement that when the ques- 
tion of the appointment of an English controller to advise 
the Khedive's Ministers arose, he was the person naturally 
indicated for the post. "Thus," as he says, "the various 
essential parts of the State machine were adjusted. A 
new Khedive ruled. The relations between the Khedive 
and his Ministers were placed on a satisfactory footing. A 
Prime Minister (Riaz Pasha) had been nominated who had 
taken an active part in opposing the abuses prevalent dur- 
ing the reign of Ismail Pasha. The relations between the 
Sultan and the Khedive had been regulated in such a way 
as to ensure the latter against any excessive degree of Turkish 
interference. The system which had been devised for 
associating Europeans with the Government held out good 
promise of success, inasmuch as it was in accordance with 
the Khedive's own views. Lastly, an International Com- 
mission had been created with full powers to arrange matters 
between the Egyptian Government and their creditors."^ 
But, suddenly, as it seemed to those who had not been 
watching events on the spot, across this peaceful sky flashed 
the red meteor of rebellion, massacre, and arson. *i 

It is no easy matter to estimate the character of Arabi 
Pasha. He seems, from even so friendly an account as that 
of Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, not to have been particularly intelligent 
or particularly brave. It appears likely that he, at least, 
connived at the burning and loot of Alexandria. All this, 
however, would not have prevented his being a true patriot 
according to his lights. As Mr. Herbert Paul observes: 
"How far Arabi was a mutinous soldier guided by personal 

' Herbert Paul, A History of Modern England, vol, iv., p. 247. 



196 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

ambition and how far he was an enthusiastic patriot burning 
to free his country from a foreign yoke, would admit of an 
easier answer if one alternative excluded the other." ^ One 
thing, however, is certain. The movement he led was far 
more than the merely military revolt which Mr. Gladstone 
and everyone in England at first thought it; it was in fact 
a genuine Nationalist movement directed rather against 
the alien Turk than against the alien Englishman. That 
the truth of this is now generally admitted is principally due 
to Mr. Blunt and in a lesser degree to Mr. Labouchere and 
the group of extreme Radicals of which he was already 
beginning to be the unofficial leader in Parliament. During 
the spring and summer of 1882, Mr. Labouchere's first 
observations in the House of Commons on Egyptian affairs 
were of a thoroughly orthodox nature. On May 12 we 
find him asking the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Sir 
Charles Dilke) "whether any steps are being taken by Her 
Majesty's Government in view of the critical state of affairs 
in Egypt to maintain oiu* influence in that country."^ On 
July 27 he replies in a vein at once serious and sarcastic to 
Mr. McCarthy, who had made a speech in Arabi's favour. 
He thought that Mr. McCarthy had drawn on his imagina- 
tion for the character of Arabi Pasha. They knew perfectly 
well that the most eminent men in the world were frequently 
great patriots ; and they also knew that military adventurers 
always called themselves patriots in order to advance their 
own ends. They knew little of the career of Arabi Pasha, 
but they did know that he had designedly massacred Euro- 
peans in Alexandria, and had deliberately burnt down one 
of the noblest cities of his native land. What would be the 
effect of the vote^ they proposed to give if it were successful? 
The English nation would have to withdraw entirely from 
their present position in Egypt, and the result would be that 

^ Herbert Paul, A History of Modern England, vol. iv., p. 247. 

'Hansard, May 12, 1882, vol. 269. 

3 Vote of credit for forces in the Mediterranean. 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 197 

we should have behaved in a contemptible manner in the 
face of Europe. India would not be worth one year's pur- 
chase. He was not a great beUever in prestige; but if we 
were to retire after otir men had been massacred our Empire 
in the East would not be worth a year's purchase. This 
speech, occupying eight columns of Hansard, aims at cutting 
away the relations between England and Turkey (which 
shows that even at so early a date Mr. Labouchere reaUsed 
something of the true nature of the grievance of the Egyptian 
Nationalists) and upholding British intervention.^ Labby 
among the prophets indeed! 

After the retirement of Arabi from Alexandria, he issued 
a proclamation stating that "irreconcilable war existed 
between the Egyptians and the EngHsh, and all those who 
proved traitors to their country would not only be subjected 
to the severest penalty in accordance with martial law, but 
would be for ever accursed in the next world." Three more 
towns were plundered and the European inhabitants mas- 
sacred. British public opinion was now thoroughly aroused, 
and probably no Government could have stayed in power 
without taking some overt action. The action taken by 
Mr. Gladstone's Government was very definite. On July 
22 the Prime Minister obtained, by a majority of 275 to 19, 
a vote of £2,300,000. A force of 6000 men was sent to Egypt 
from India; 15,000 men were despatched to Cyprus and 
Malta. Sir Garnet (afterwards Viscount) Wolseley was 
placed in command in Egypt, "in support of the authority 
of His Highness the Khedive, as estabhshed by the Firmans 
of the Sultan and the existing international engagements, to 
suppress a military revolt in that country." 

The French Government, while decHning to co-operate 
with the British troops, assured Lord Granville of their moral 
support. In the month of September the battle of Tel-el- 
Kebir, in which the Egyptian army was completely routed, 
was fought. By this event British intervention was justified 

^ Hansard, July 27, 1882, vol. 272. 



198 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

in the eyes of the world, and what became in the long run 
hardly distinguishable from British rule was established on 
the banks of the Nile. It was the battle of Tel-el- Kebir that 
convinced Mr. Labouchere of what would be, and in fact what 
came to be, the end of the course on which the Government 
was embarked, for he very soon sold his Egyptian shares. 
"They fell off his back like Christian's burden in Pilgrim's 
Progress, and Labby became an honest politician," said Mr. 
Wilfrid Blunt to me. The following letter to Sir Charles Dilke 
very clearly expresses his new views on Egyptian policy : 

Reform Club, October lo, 1882. 

Dear Dilke, — The great ones of the earth who, like you, 
live in Government Offices, never really understand the bent of 
public opinion. This is probably a dispensation of Providence 
by means of which Ministers are not eternal. 

Personally, I should be glad to see the Liberal Party, after 
passing a Franchise Bill, sent about their business, and the 
country divided between Conservatives and Radicals. I speak, 
therefore, from the Radical standpoint, and viewing the matter 
from that point, I see that the dissatisfaction against your 
Egyptian policy is growing. 

Arabi (like most patriots) was "on the make." His force 
consisted in siding with the Notables in their legitimate demands. 

Now that the war is over, it is really impossible for Radicals 
to accept a policy based upon administering Egypt, partly for 
the good of its inhabitants, but mainly for the good of the bond- 
holders. I am a bondholder, so it cannot be said that I am per- 
sonally prejudiced against such a policy. But I am sure that it 
will not go down, and indeed that our whole course of action has 
been so tainted with it, that there will be great disaffection in 
the Radical ranks throughout the country unless the tree be now 
made to bend the other way. 

You are now the man in possession in Egypt, so you can make 
terms with Europe. I would therefore humbly suggest that you 
should, after insisting upon an amnesty, call together the Notables 
and hand the country over to them, stipulating alone that there 
should be Ministerial responsibility, and the control of the purse. 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 199 

The International Obligation of Egypt to pay its bondholders 
was bon d professer, when the Expedition had to be defended, 
but it is in reality -a pure fiction. Moreover, if it were not, we 
cannot decently join in a holy alHance to maintain Khedives, 
and to deprive nations of what is the very basis of representative 
government. 

Having handed Egypt over to the Notables, you can then 
go before Europe with a clean bill of health — propose that the 
connection of the country with Turkey shall be a purely nominal 
one and that, henceforward, no European power shall directly 
or indirectly interfere with its internal affairs. 

At the same time, you ought to take advantage of your being 
in Egypt to establish yourself in some vantage post on the Suez 
Canal. This once done, Egypt separated from Turkey, and all 
European powers warned off, we remain in reality absolute 
masters of the position. Very probably the Egyptians will 
make a muddle of these finances, but this will no more affect 
us than the mistakes of Spanish finances affect our tenure of 
Gibraltar. 

Controllers, a swarm of foreign bureaucrats, European ad- 
ministrators, Khedives ruling against the wishes of their subjects, 
an English army of occupation or an army commanded by my 
esteemed friend, Baker, composed of black ex-slaves, Ottoman 
cut-throats, and Swiss cowboys, are abominations, only equal 
to that of concerning ourselves with the payment of interest on 
a public debt. To attempt these things will be to keep open a 
perpetual Radical sore, and in the end will only land us in another 
expedition. 

Pray excuse the observations of a humble admirer. The 
Jingoes, it is true, are not so hostile as they were, but you do not 
suppose that they would vote for the present Government, whilst 
on the other hand the Radicals will sulk and not vote so long as 
Radical principles are ignored in Egypt. Government has not 
yet announced its policy, so at present no great harm is done, 
but the appointment of Baker, the handing over of Arabi to the 
Khedive, the reign of Generals and diplomatists, the absence of 
any appearance of consulting the Egyptians, and various other 
similar things are producing distrust. You will say, "What 
can a fellah know of poHtics?" To this I can only answer, 



200 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

"What does a Wiltshire peasant know about them?" — Yours 
truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere soon began to put forward his reformed 
views in Parliament. On October 30 we find him asking 
Sir Charles Dilke whether "Her Majesty's Government is 
a party to any treaty, alliance, or compact with any foreign 
power which would oblige it to prevent the Egyptians from 
exercising that control over their taxation, expenditure, and 
administration which is enjoyed by the inhabitants of the 
independent or semi-independent States which formerly 
were integral parts of the Ottoman Empire," ^ and demanding 
information as to the cruelty and insults to which it was 
alleged the Egyptian prisoners had been subjected. Mr. 
Labouchere wrote a long article in Truth under the heading : 
"Egypt was glad when they departed" (Psalm cv., 38), the 
following extracts from which put the situation very clearly 
as he conceived it. 

That a small body of English troops should remain for a brief 
time in Egypt at the expense of that country is, perhaps, a neces- 
sity of the position. But what I contend is, that during their 
stay the Notables ought to be called together, that every place 
of emolument ought to be filled up by an Egyptian, that the bag 
and baggage policy ought to be adopted towards the Turkish 
officials, who are as objectionable to the natives as were the 
Turkish officials to the Bulgarians, and that a free constitutional 
government ought to be established, based on the two corner 
stones of all constitutional liberty — Ministerial responsibility 
and the right of taxpayers over the purse. In order to carry out 
this programme — distasteful alike to professional diplomatists 
and to professional soldiers — we ought at once to send to Egypt 
a stalwart and experienced Liberal, who has graduated in the 
school of Parliamentary Government, and not in those of the 
Horse Guards, of the Foreign Office, or of the India Office. Look- 
ing round, I see no man better able to fill the post than Mr. Shaw 

^Hansard, October 30, 1882, vol. 274. 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 201 

Lefevre. He is able, he is a skilled and successful administrator, 
he is untainted with the creed that all Orientals are made to be 
bondsmen for Europeans, and his political principles are excep- 
tionally sound. 

What our diplomacy has to do is, to discover some means to 
render the high road to India through the Canal secure. Obvi- 
ously we cannot do in this matter precisely as we should like, 
which would be to say that in time of peace all war vessels may 
pass through the Canal, and in time of war only ours. I hardly 
see how we can go beyond making the passage neutral in times 
of peace, and excluding from it in times of war the ships of belH- 
gerents. If Egypt were left to herself, I believe that she could 
very safely be left in charge of the Canal. Her people would be 
glad to be clear of all European compHcations, and, in case of 
war, she would occupy Port Said, and notify belHgerents that 
their ships would not be allowed to pass." 

On the question of India he expressed himself thus: 

I am not at all of the "Perish India" school of politics. If 
it could be proved that our Empire would perish if we did not 
establish ourselves in Egypt, I am by no means certain but what 
I should be in favour of our establishment. But I am a beUever 
not only in the justice, but in the expediency of an alliance with 
the people of a country, and not with its ruler against the people. 
Any intermixture in the internal affairs of Egypt on our part is 
not only opposed to Liberal principles, but opposed to English 
interests . To what has it already led ? To a most costly miHtary 
expedition; to our being arrayed against rights without which 
there can be no true Hberty or sound government ; to the slaughter 
of Englishmen and Egyptians with all the "pomp and pride of 
glorious war"; and lastly to our soldiers acting as retrievers, to 
hunt down and handover to punishment to an Ottoman potentate, 
men many of whom — whether they were ambitious and whether 
they were ill-advised — had unquestionably a perfect right to 
fight in support of the principle that the only authority of their 
nation ought to be its representatives. ^ 

' Truth, October 5, 1882. 



202 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

A correspondent at once asked him: "How is it that you 
were in favour of the control and in favour of the Expedi- 
tion, and yet now tell your readers that the control ought to 
cease, and that having by means of the Expedition estab- 
lished a firm foothold in Egypt, our next step ought to be 
to evacuate the country?" The following number of Truth 
delivered itself in reply as follows : 

The Control, when first established, simply meant that 
Egypt should go into liquidation, and pay so much in the pound 
to its creditors, a couple of European controllers with half a 
dozen clerks, being appointed by the Egyptian Government to 
receive the composition from the Egyptian Treasury, and to 
hand it over to the various classes of bondholders. To this there 
could have been no sort of objection ; but, little by little, this sim- 
ple and semi-private arrangement was converted into a so-called 
international obligation on the part of the Egyptians to remain 
eternally divested from all control over their own expenditure, 
and to allow their entire financial administration to be placed in 
the hands of about 1300 Europeans, with salaries amounting to 
nearly £400,000 per annum, whilst the Controllers themselves 
had seats in the Cabinet, with a veto upon everything proposed 
by their Egyptian colleagues. France and England were the 
executive officers of this scheme. If the Egyptian officers had 
assented. to it, nothing further was to be said, except that they 
were singularly and curiously wanting in patriotism. However 
we find now that they did not, and that we have been under an 
illusion. The Notables and the entire country were — to their 
credit be it said — opposed to it. Arabi took advantage of this 
feeling. He sided with the country, and at the same time made 
his bargain. "I," he practically said to the Notables, "support 
you in your rights ; as a quid pro quo you must support me in 
what I am pleased to call the rights of the army — that is to say, 
that it shall be increased by 18,000 men." Without the army 
the Notables were powerless; they accordingly accepted the 
terms. We therefore find ourselves in the position that we were 
fully justified in asserting that Arabi was a self-seeking military 
adventurer, but that he was also the exponent of the legitimate 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 203 

demands of the Egyptian people. The Control had become po- 
litical — it was no longer a reasonable financial arrangement, but 
an unreasonable and improper attempt to deprive the Egyptians 
of their rights, in order to secure high salaries for a swarm of 
European locusts, and certainty of interest to European bond- 
holders. Those, therefore, who had regarded it in its natural 
original conception, as fair and useful, have a perfect right to 
assert that this original conception had been so perverted that 
it had become a monstrous instrument for the suppression of all 
national vitality. 

We, however, were tied to France. If we had not interfered, 
France probably would have done so. Moreover, we foolishly 
had pledged ourselves to maintain the Khedive in his position. 
The only way, therefore, to get out of the complication was to 
cut the Gordian knot; but, in order to do this, we were neces- 
sarily obliged to adopt the theory that Arabi was a mere military 
adventurer, who was attempting for his own ends to coerce not 
only the Khedive but the Egyptian people. 

Our expedition, as was to be anticipated, has proved success- 
ful. Our troops hold Egypt. What then ought we to do? 
Obviously to hand it over to the Notables, who are the repre- 
sentatives of the Egyptian people, and to inform these Notables 
that we have no intention of repeating our previous error, but 
that, experience having shown us the fatal results of allowing 
ourselves little by little to be dragged into an attempt to manage 
other people's finances with a view to public creditors being paid 
interest, we shall leave Egypt and Egypt's creditors to settle 
their conflicting interests as they best please. This is the logical 
consequence of our having acted upon the assumption that Arabi 
was terrorising the Egyptians. ... 

It is evident to me, therefore, that the only policy which an 
English Liberal Ministry can adopt is to go before Europe with 
a proposal to make Egypt an Eastern Belgium, and to base our 
suggestion upon our own renunciation of interference in its 
internal affairs. I hear it said that the Liberal party is popular 
owing to its successes in Egypt. It may, perhaps, be for the 
nonce popular — or, to put it more correctly, not quite so un- 
popular — as it was with Jingoes, but these same Jingoes will not 
cease to vote for Conservatives. ... 



204 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

How then about the Canal? Well, I should base my policy 
upon that pursued in like cases by the United States. I should 
explain to Europe that the Canal is the connecting link between 
Great Britain and India, and that consequently the exigencies 
of geography and an enlightened self-interest render it absolutely 
necessary for us to be paramount there. There might be a little 
grumbling, but no one would go to war to hinder this, because 
its plain common-sense would be too obvious. ^ 

In the meantime Arabi was lying in prison at Cairo 
awaiting his trial, and Mr. Labouchere took up his case 
energetically in the House of Commons. A military tri- 
bunal was to be charged with the trial, and it was no secret 
that the Khedive was determined that the death penalty 
should be inflicted on the heads of the rebellion. Mr. 
Wilfrid Blunt wrote, on September i, a long letter to Mr. 
Gladstone, stating his intention of providing Arabi with an 
English counsel at his own expense and that of his friends, 
and hoping that "every facility will be afforded me and 
those with me in Egypt to prosecute our task." Mr. Glad- 
stone, who was deeply hostile to Arabi, replied through his 
secretary, that "all that he can say at the present moment 
is that he will bring your request before Lord Granville, 
with whom he will consult, but that he cannot hold out any 
assurance that it will be complied with." 

Mr. Labouchere continued to enquire into the Govern- 
ment's intentions towards Arabi in the House of Commons. 
A timely question on October 31 to Sir Charles Dilke secured 
the intervention of the press at the trial, and further ques- 
tions on the following days forestalled the attempts of the 
Khedive to wriggle out of the conditions that Mr. Blunt's 
advocate had obtained from Mr. Gladstone. Arabi was, 
on December 4, condemned to death, and in spite of Mr. 
Gladstone's being at first inclined to let the law take its 
course, the sentence was commuted to banishment to Ceylon. 
Mr. Labouchere commented in Truth as follows: "The farce 

' Truth, October 12, 1882. 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 205 

of the rebel's condemnation to exile with retention of his 
rank and with a handsome allowance, is a fitting conclusion 
to the trial. I see it stated that Arabi will be invited to take 
up his residence in this or that portion of British territory. 
It need hardly be said that he may reside in any part of the 
world, outside Egypt, that he pleases. There is no t listing 
law which enables us to detain an Egyptian in deference to the 
wishes of an Egyptian Khedive; and it is not likely that we 
shall ever consent to convert any portion of our territory into 
an international gaol, where all who are in disfavour with for- 
eign rulers are to be deported, and restrained in their liberty."^ 
When Parhament met after Christmas, Mr. Labouchere 
seconded Sir Wilfrid Lawson's amendment to the Reply 
to the Speech from the Throne to the effect that no sufficient 
reason had been shown for the employment of British forces 
in reconstituting the Government of Egypt. It was certain, 
he said, that Arabi was supported by the entire Egyptian 
nation. He could quite understand why the Opposition 
did not challenge the policy of the Government. The 
Government were practically dragged into the war by the 
acts of the Opposition when in power. Anyone who read 
the Blue Books must see that. A great many Liberals and 
all the Radicals in the country regretted the Government 
plunging into the war. There could be no doubt that it 
was entered into for the sake of the bondholders and for 
that reason only. We were going to place the Egyptian 
army under an English General and a financier at the side 
of the Khedive, and then tell Europe that the Khedive was 
an independent ruler and that we had nothing to do with 
the Government of Egypt. Why were we there? For the 
single object of collecting the debts of the bondholders.'' 
He wrote to Mr. Chamberlain on January 9, 1883: 

You people do not seem to have a very clear policy in Egypt. 
I cannot understand why you do not settle the French by adopt- 

» Truth, December 7, 1882. » Hansard, February 15, 1883, vol. 276. 



206 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

ing the line of "Egypt for the Egyptians" and convert the coun- 
try into a sort of Belgium. If you can establish the principle 
that no one is to interfere, you have got all that you want. 
To do this only two things are necessary : 

1. Fair Courts of Justice where "meum and tuum" is 
recognised. 

2. A Representative Assembly with a right to vote the 
Budget. 

As regards the debt there are three loans, secured by special 
mortgages; two on land, and one on the railroads. Let the 
mortgagees take these securities, when the loans would be con- 
verted into companies, and the interest on them not be dependent 
upon any political arrangement. Rothschild has always told 
me that the domains, on which his loan of £400,000,000 is secured, 
are worth £400,500,000. By handing over to him the security, 
£500,000 would therefore be obtained. 

As regards the General Debt (the United), it is a swindle, but 
without going into this it might be regarded as the general debt 
of the country, and the Egyptians, like any other nation, would 
be left to pay or not as they pleased. 

The main swindle of the Goschen-Rivers-Wilson scheme was 
that the fellahs had paid £17,000,000 to free the land from a 
portion of the land tax after 1886. The law which partially 
liberated the land was abrogated, and, instead of the fellahs 
being treated like bondholders, although they had paid cash, 
whereas the latter had really paid about 20% on the value of the 
bonds, they were told that as a quid pro quo they would receive 
1% on their £17,000,000 for fifty years. The Canal question 
is nonsense. If we hold the Red Sea we hold the Canal, in the 
sense that we can stop all traffic. If we are at war with a mari- 
time power, either we should have the command of the Mediter- 
ranean or we should not. In the latter case, we should still by 
our hold on the Red Sea be able to close the Canal ; in the former 
case we should be able not only to close it to others, but to use 
it for our own powers. Protocols and treaties are waste paper, 
they never hold against the exigencies of a belligerent; and, if 
we were at war with one maritime power, we should not have 
the others interfering to maintain our treaty rights, for, differing 
on many things, all continental powers regard us as the bullies 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 207 

of the ocean. An English garrison at Port Said is a reality; as 
we are not likely to have one there, our best plan is to leave 
things alone, and, in the event of a serious maritime war, at once 
to occupy Port Said. 

The interests of the Egyptian exiles also claimed Mr. 
Labouchere's attention. We find him in March putting 
searching questions as to their precise legal status, demand- 
ing satisfactory evidence of their support being adequately 
provided for, and enquiring why the Egyptian Government 
had unlawfully deprived Arabi of his title of Pasha. 

In the debate of March 2 on a supplementary estimate 
of £728,000 "for additional expenditure for army services 
consequent on the dispatch of an expeditionary force to 
Egypt, ' ' he spoke with his accustomed frankness. He would 
like to know where the money was to come from. He had 
seen it stated in the papers and other organs that it was to 
be raised by an increase on the Income Tax. For his part, 
he should like to see it raised in one of two ways — one, by 
raising it from the landed interest — or, since he was afraid 
the Government would not accept that plan — in default, 
by a general tax on every individual in the country poor or 
rich. Let every one of those shrieking Jingoes who went out 
calUng on the Government to go to war, now here and now 
there, understand that they would have to pay for the cost 
of those wars. Then he thought they would be less inclined 
than now to advance the Jingo policy which he was sorry to 
see had been adopted by the Government, and which they 
had inherited from gentlemen on the other side of the House. 
He believed that the war had been a mistake all through. 
If we went to Egypt at all we ought to have installed Arabi 
instead of the Khedive. He believed that as long as British 
troops supported the Khedive and supported him against 
his own subjects, England was absolutely responsible for 
what was going on in Egypt. No doubt Lord Dufferin did 
his best to procure trustworthy information, but he was 



208 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

necessarily very much in the hands of the Europeans and 
of the Ministers and friends of the Khedive. He did not 
gather from the dispatches that Lord Duff erin had consulted 
the people of Egypt. Sir George Campbell, the member for 
Kirkcaldy, said that he had read, marked, learned, and 
inwardly digested Lord Dufferin's scheme of government. 
For his own part, although he had read, marked, and learned 
it to a certain degree he could not digest it because it was 
objectionable to a Radical stomach. Lord Dufferin's 
scheme was a perfect sham of constitutional government. 
If any species of representative government were established 
in Egypt it must be based on control of the purse. But 
when anything was said to the noble Lord, the Under- 
Secretary, on this subject, he vaguely alluded to representa- 
tive government and international obligations. Was Lord 
Dufferin prevented from doing what he thought desirable 
for the country by any obligations which the Egyptians were 
supposed to be under to pay the interest on their debt? If 
there was any obligation on their part it was not our business 
to go there to carry it out. ... He denied that the people 
of Egypt were bound by any such thing, but, supposing 
they were, it was not England's business to deprive them of 
the most elementary and necessary basis of representative 
government — the government of the purse. ^ 

On June 1 1, he proposed the reduction of Lord Wolseley's 
grant from £30,000 to £12,000. What, he said, had Lord 
Wolseley done in Egypt? He went to Ismailia and from 
thence marched his men to Cairo. He took the straight 
road, and on the road he foimd a lot of miserable Arabs 
entrenched; he advanced and the Arabs marched away. 
That was the whole history of the exploit in Egypt. =" 

Lord Dufferin left Egypt in May, 1883. He was pleased 
with the success of his mission. To use his own words — 
"the fellah like his own Memnon had not remained irre- 

» Hansard, March 2, 1883, vol. 276. 
' Ibid., June ii, 1883, vol. 280. 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 209 

sponsi ve to the beams of the new dawn . " He left Sir Edward 
Malet as Consul-General, and resumed his normal functions 
at Constantinople. He departed under a shower of com- 
pliments, and he left Egypt apparently prosperous. Arabi 
was an exile in Ceylon. Sherif Pasha was the Khedive's 
loyal and obedient Minister. Sir Archibald Alison was 
in command of the British garrison. The Egyptian army, 
about six thousand in number, was imder the fostering care 
of Sir Evelyn Wood, Colonel Scott- Moncrieff directed the 
work of irrigation, and another Briton, Sir Benson Maxwell, 
superintended the native tribunals. Hitherto the British 
Government had made no mistakes, and Egypt had reaped 
only benefit from the intrusion of the foreigner. The false 
position in which England stood with full authority, ample 
power, and no legal right, had not yet led to any consequences 
of a serious and practical kind. ^ 

Danger, was, however, creeping up to Egypt from the 
south. A vast, vaguely limited country, extending from 
Assouan to the Equator, and known as the Soudan, had 
been claimed as Egyptian territory by Ismail, who had 
appointed the famous Gordon Governor-General. On 
Ismail's fall in '79, Gordon was recalled and the Soudan fell 
a prey to local bandits. The reconstituted Egyptian Govern- 
ment was incapable of interference, and towards the end of 
'82 a Mussulman, Mohamed Ahmed, raised the standard of 
religious reform and rebellion against the distant and incapa- 
ble Egyptian authorities. The Mahdi, or Messiah, as he 
called himself, took El Obeid and made himself master of 
Kordofan by the end of January, '83. In the summer of 
the same year seven thousand Egyptian troops, under the 
command of Hicks Pasha, a retired officer of the Indian army 
who had entered the service of the lOiedive, were dispatched 
against him by the Egyptian Government. Granville was 
careful to formally disengage the responsibility of the English 
Cabinet in this measure. It is certain, however, that he 

' Herbert Paul, A History of Modern England, vol. iv. 



210 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

could have prevented this action of the Khedive's Ministers, 
and, as he was perfectly well aware through the information 
of Colonel Stewart, who had been associated with Gordon's 
administration, of the utter impossibility of Hicks's task, it 
is difficult to acquit him of moral responsibility. "The 
faith in the power of phrases to alter facts," says Lord 
Milner in his England in Egypt, "has never been more 
strangely manifested than in this idea, that we could shake 
off our virtual responsibility for the policy of Egypt in the 
Soudan by a formal disclaimer." On November 5, the 
Egyptian force was cut to pieces near Shekan, about two 
days' journey from El Obeid, by the Mahdi at the head of 
forty thousand men, and Hicks and his staff died fighting 
at hopeless odds. On the advice of Sir Evelyn Baring, who 
had just arrived in Egypt from India, where he had filled 
the post of Financial Minister to Lord Ripon's Government, 
the English Cabinet recognised at last their responsibility. 
It was decided that the Soudan must be abandoned and 
that the Mahdi must be induced to allow the Egyptian 
garrisons, amounting to about forty thousand men, still 
remaining there, to retire. 

Mr. Labouchere wrote to Mr. Chamberlain as follows 
on December 15, 1883: "I hope that we are not going to 
undertake the reconquest of the Soudan. The difficult 
position in which we are comes from not having broken 
entirely with the Conservative policy in Egypt. They 
might have annexed the coimtry: we cannot, so we give 
advice which is not taken, try to tinker up an impossible 
financial situation, and make ourselves responsible for every 
folly committed by a gang of corrupt and silly Pashas. The 
result is that we are now told that we have a new frontier 
somewhere in the direction of the Equator, and that our 
honour is concerned, etc., etc. If the French are so foolish 
as to wish to acquire influence in the Soudan, I cannot 
conceive why we should seek to acquire it in order to prevent 
them. I believe that the KJiedive and his friends are de- 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 211 

lighted at what has occurred, because they hope that our 
evacuation will be put off; so long as we retain one soldier 
there, or indeed assume the part of bailiffs for the locusts 
who make money out of the country, something will always 
occur to force us to remain." 

Mr. Chamberlain replied on December 18: "I do not 
think there is the slightest intention of engaging in any 
operations in the Soudan. The utmost we are likely to do 
is to undertake the defence of Egypt proper, and I hope 
there is no fear of that being attacked. I wish we could get 
out of the whole business, but I have always thought that, 
at the time we interfered, we really had no possible alter- 
native. I am not Christian enough to turn the other cheek 
after one has been slapped, and we had unfortunately put 
ourselves in a position in which the first slap had already 
been administered. It is, however, a warning and a lesson 
to look a little more closely into the beginnings of things." 

On the 20th Labouchere wrote again to Mr. Chamber- 
lain: "From all I hear, matters are in a mess in Egypt. 
Tewfik is a weak creature, and he and his entourage intrigue 
against us, and yet intrigue to keep us there, as they are afraid 
of what may happen when we go. If the fellahs have any 
opinion, it is dislike of Tewfik as the puppet of ' foreigners. * 
The Mahdi will never attack Egypt proper, which is the 
valley of the Nile and the Delta. If we send more troops 
there, it will be the more difficult to evacuate. As long as 
we retain a corporal's guard, it will be the object of Tewfik 
and all the locusts to get up disturbances in order to com- 
promise us. Surely it would be easy to come to an arrange- 
ment by which Egypt would be neutralised and left to itself: 
the reply always is that interest of the debt would not be 
paid and that, in consequence of the Law of Liquidation, 
some Power would interfere for the benefit of its Egyptian 
bondholders. But these worthy people must be compara- 
tively few in numbers, and except as a pretext, no Power 
would think of taking up the cudgels for them, any more 



212 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

than they did for Peruvian bondholders. The whole thing 
is a mere bugbear. Even if France did go there we should 
not suffer." To which Mr. Chamberlain replied on Decem- 
ber 22 : "I think I agree with you on all points of Egyptian 
policy, but my hands are so full just now that I have to let 
foreign affairs work themselves out, and to content myself 
with occasionally giving a push in the right direction." 

Public opinion in England was deeply stirred by the 
disaster at Shekan, and one of those popular cries that are 
so often and so disastrously interpreted as heavenly voices 
went up all over the land. The nation called for Gordon. 
The question of Gordon's mission has been exhaustively 
discussed from every point of view. The responsibility for 
his failure and tragic death is apportioned by Lord Cromer 
between Gordon himself and the Government who over- 
ruled his (Cromer's) objection to employing him, and went 
on to make every mistake they could. Gordon misinter- 
preted his orders, and the Government was then made 
responsible for the consequences of a policy of which they 
had never dreamt. He thus placed himself in a situation 
from which it was impossible to extricate him in time. Mr. 
Wilfrid Blunt, on the other hand, places the responsibility 
of the tragedy principally at the door of Cromer. I am 
not here concerned with this delicate controversy. Of this 
at least there is no doubt, Gordon's mission was understood 
by the country and Parliament to be of a purely peaceful 
nature. Its avowed object was one which approved itself 
to Liberal ideas, i.e. the disengaging of British responsibility 
from a purely Egyptian matter and the rescue of the Egyp- 
tian garrisons. Radicals luiderstood that these purposes 
were to be achieved by purely peaceful means. The Mahdi 
was presumably to be approached by recognised methods 
of negotiation. It is well known that when Gordon got to 
Khartoum, these instructions went by the board. He had 
been nominated, while on his way, at Cairo, Governor- 
General of the Soudan, and the Government left, by means 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 213 

of supplementary clauses in their instructions, a considerable 
latitude to Baring under whose orders, at his (Baring's) 
request, Gordon was placed. Lord Cromer has told the 
world in his Modern Egypt of the difficulties of the situation. 
Gordon was a mystic and suffered chronically from "inspira- 
tions," which changed a dozen times a day. He does not 
seem to have made any attempt to carry out his mission 
by diplomatic methods. He soon came to conceive of that 
mission as a sort of rival "Mahdism." He became the 
Angel of the Lord fighting with Apollyon. All this must 
have been inexpressibly disconcerting to the prudent homme 
d'affaires at Cairo, and no less so to his nominal superior in 
Downing Street. 

Mr. Labouchere's attitude in the matter was simple and 
consistent. On February 14, four days before Gordon 
started, the Opposition moved a vote of censure on the 
Government in consequence of the Hicks disaster, and were 
supported by several Radical members. Sir Wilfrid Lawson 
was supported by Mr. Labouchere in an amendment to Sir 
Stafford Northcote's motion: "That this House, whilst 
declining at present to express an opinion on the Egyptian 
policy which Her Majesty's Government have pursued 
during the last two years with the support of the House, 
trusts that in future British forces may not be employed 
for the purpose of interfering with the Egyptian people in 
their selection of their own Government."' On February 
25* by which time news of the conquest of Tokar by Osman 
Digna, the ablest of the Mahdi's lieutenants, had reached 
England, Mr. Labouchere asked the Secretary for War 
whether it was within the discretion of General Graham to 
advance beyond Suakim against Osman Digna. Hartington 
replied oracularly that that appeared to him a question 
highly undesirable to answer and that the general object 
of Graham's instructions had been already stated to the 
House. 

^Hansard, February 14, 1884, vol. 284. 



214 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

Mr. Wilfrid Blunt's Diary for April 4, 1884, records the 
following conversation with Mr. Labouchere: "Lunched 
with Labouchere. He is more practical, and we have dis- 
cussed every detail of the policy to be suggested to Glad- 
stone. He will feel the ground through Herbert Gladstone, 
which is his way of consulting the oracle. He told me the 
history of Gordon's mission. Gordon's idea had been to go 
out and make friends with the Mahdi, and to have absolutely 
nothing to do with Baring or the Khedive, or with anybody 
in Egypt. He was going to Suakim straight, where he 
counted upon one of the neighbouring Sheiks, whose sons' 
lives he had saved or spared, and his mission was to be one 
entirely of peace. But the Foreign Office and Baring caught 
hold of him as he passed through Egypt, and made him stop 
to see the Khedive, and so he was befooled into going to 
Khartoum as the Khedive's lieutenant. Now he had failed 
altogether in his mission of peace, and the Government had 
recalled him more than once in the last few days, but he had 
refused to come back. Gladstone had decided absolutely 
to recall all the troops in Egypt when Hicks' defeat was 
heard of, and was in a great rage. The expedition to Suakim 
had been forced upon him by the Cabinet, and Hartington 
had taken care to give Graham no special instructions, so 
that he might fight without orders. This Graham, of course, 
had done, and Gladstone, more angry still, had gone down 
to sulk at Coombe. Now he would stand it no longer, and 
he had let Hartington in by the speech he had made last, 
night. Nobody expected it. Labouchere thought the mo- 
ment most favourable for a new move."^ And on May 
19 Mr. Labouchere asked in the House: "Whether, for the 
satisfaction of those who believe that it has never been 
brought to the knowledge of the Mahdi and of the Soudanese 
who are engaged in military operations what the object of 
the mission of General Gordon is, he will consider the feasi- 
bility of conveying to them that Her Majesty's Government, 

'■ Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, Gordon and Khartoum. 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 215 

in sending an English General to the Soudan, only desired 
to effect by peaceful means the withdrawal of the Egyptian 
troops, employes, and other foreigners who many wish to 
leave the country, and whether he will take steps to enter 
into diplomatic relations with the Mahdi, or whomsoever 
else may be the governing power in the Soudan, in order to 
prevent if possible all further effusion of blood, to establish 
a fixed frontier between Egypt and the Soudan, and to effect 
an arrangement by which General Gordon and those who 
may wish to accompany him will be enabled peaceably to 
withdraw from the Soudan."^ Mr. Gladstone replied to 
Mr. Labouchere's question, finishing his remarks with these 
words: "Whatever measures the Government take will be 
in the direction indicated by the question — to make effective 
arrangements with regard to putting all the difficulties at 
an end." 

Mr. Labouchere, to whom, as a Radical and a Nation- 
alist, the position of the Mahdi appealed, did not confine 
himself to work in Parliament. Mr. Wilfrid Bltmt was 
attempting to negotiate with Mr. Gladstone to stop the 
war, which had followed Gordon's death, and had taken Mr. 
Labouchere into his confidence. Mr. Labouchere wrote to 
Mr. Blunt on February 20, 1885, as follows: 

Dear Blunt,— I had a talk with H(erbert) G(ladstone) 
last night. He wants to know what evidence can be given — 
that the man who came to me was Arabi's Minister of Police at 
Cairo, and what was his name — and that the Mahdi's man is 
the Mahdi's man. It is clear that so far he is right. If the 
latter has no credentials he should get them. Let us assume 
that he either has them or can get them. Then there must be a 
basis of terms. I would suggest then that the Soudan, with the 
exception of the Port of Suakim, be recognised as an independent 
state under, if wished, the suzerainty of the Sultan, and that all 
Egyptian Pashas who wish to leave it be allowed to leave it. 

If the credentials hold water, and if these terms are agreed to, 

^ Hansard, May 19, 1884, vol. 288. 



2i6 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

then the Mahdi's man should write them out and say that he 
will agree to them. 

But it is very essential that nothing should be known about 
the matter. I should have to work others in the Cabinet, and, 
if necessary, to appeal to Parliament. Clearly we could not 
send a mission to the Mahdi, but if an agreement were come to, 
an emissary from the Mahdi and one from our Government might 
meet for details. What I want is to establish a discussion with 
the l^.Iahdi — the rest would follow. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

P.S. — You see, if something is to be done to stop this war, 
we must leave the vague, and come to hard and fast facts. 

In elucidation of the above letter Mr. Blunt writes to 
me on February 20, 1913: "The person referred to in your 
uncle's letter of February 20, 1885, is clearly Ismail Bey 
Jowdat, who acted as Prefect of Police at Cairo during the 
war of 1882. . . . Later he came to London in connection 
with negotiations I was attempting to get entered into by 
Gladstone with the Mahdi, through Sezzed Jamal ed Din, 
as to which I was in communication with your uncle. . . . 
I had, no doubt, sent Jowdat to your uncle, and, at one time, 
it seemed as if we were likely to succeed in getting a mission 
sent or negotiations of some kind entered into to stop the 
war. . . . Jowdat was never himself an agent of the Mahdi, 
but he was for the time with Jamal ed Din, who was in 
communication with Khartoum. ..." 

Communication with the Mahdi was apparently not easy, 
for we find Mr. Labouchere writing again to Mr. Blunt the 
following month (March 4, 1885) : 

It appears to me that there will be a pause in our Soudan 
operations. It might therefore be desirable to take advantage 
of this in order to learn on what terms an agreement might be 
come to between us and the Soudanese. Those in Parliament 
who, like myself, see no reason why we should interfere in the 
internal afiEairs of that country would be greatly strengthened, 
were we to know the precise views of the Mahdi. 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 217 

I would therefore suggest to you that, if possible, his agent 
should let us know definitely, and after conversation with the 
Mahdi, whether the latter would agree to the following terms: 

1 . The recognition on the part of England of the independ- 
ence of the Soudan, and of the Mahdi as its ruler. 

2. The Northern frontier of the Soudan to be drawn at or 
near Wady Haifa; the Eastern frontier to exclude Suakim and 
the coast. 

3. The Mahdi to pledge himself not to molest any Soudanese 
who have taken our side, and to allow all who wish to leave the 
country to do so. 

4. The Mahdi to receive a Consular and Diplomatic Agent 
at Khartoum; to allow all foreigners to carry on their business 
unmolested in the Soudan. 

5. The establishment of some sort of Consular Courts. 

6. If possible some clause with regard to the export of slaves 
forbidding it. 

It is our object to meet the assertion of the Government that 
the Mahdi is a religious fanatic with whom it is impossible to 
treat, because he does not regard himself, alone, as the temporal 
ruler of the Soudan, but as a spiritual leader of Islam against 
Christianity — a species of Oriental Peter the Hermit. What we 
want to show is that he is the proper ruler of the Soudan, and 
that, whilst it will be open to any one outside that country to 
regard him as a prophet, he seeks to establish no temporal sway 
beyond the Soudan. If the Mahdi would declare his assent to 
the above terms, I am convinced that popular feeling here, and 
the real wishes of the members of the Government, would soon 
bring this war to a close, and that in a very short time we and the 
Mahdi would be the best of friends. 

It seems unlikely that the terms laid down in this letter 
were suggested by Mr. Labouchere without consultation 
with Mr. Herbert Gladstone. 

He missed no opportunity in Parliament of fighting the 
good fight of Radical principles. At one moment he is 
pointing out the two cardinal heresies in the policy of the 
Government — one political and the other financial: "The 



2i8 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

political heresy is that we insist on putting up the Khedive 
and maintaining him in power against his subjects. The 
result is that we are absolutely hated in Egypt, and wherever 
we are not hated we are regarded with contempt." The 
financial heresy is that "we always insist in our treatment 
of Egyptian finance that the payment of interest on the debt 
should come first, and the expenses of administration second. 
The result of this poHcy is over- taxation, the postponement 
of reform, and a deficit. ' ' ^ The policy of the Liberal Govern- 
ment was in reality, though not in profession, he asserted, 
Jingo policy, and the Radicals who had worked for Mr. 
Gladstone's return to power, relying on his Midlothian 
speeches, had been jockeyed. If only Mr. Gladstone would 
take his (Labouchere's) advice. No doubt the Prime 
Minister when thinking the matter over would say — Why 
did I not follow the member for Northampton? I should 
not have been in such a mess as I am now. For his own part 
Mr. Labouchere stood by the policy of the Midlothian 
campaign, when the Prime Minister denounced the Jingo 
policy of annexation and war. If any one had then said: 
"You will acquire power and become the most powerftil 
Minister England has had for many a day ; you will bombard 
Alexandria; you will massacre Egyptians at Tel-el- Kebir 
and Suakim, and you will go on a sort of wild-cat expedition 
into the wilds of Ethiopia in order to put down a prophet " — 
the right honourable gentleman would have replied in the 
words of Hazael to the King of Syria — "Is thy servant a 
dog that he should do this thing? "^ 

This kind of sword-play went on day after day in the 
House, and it is impossible to doubt that, although Mr. 
Labouchere was unquestionably sincere in deploring the 
policy of the Government, he must have greatly enjoyed the 
opportunity which it afforded him of displaying his wit and 
humour. Mr. Gladstone did not always appreciate these 

' Hansard, March 26, 1885, vol. 295. 
» Ibid., Feb. 27, 1885, vol. 294. 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 219 

qualities, and on one occasion, when Mr. Labouchere was 
attempting to divide the House against the Government, 
his object being, as he said, "not adverse to the Government, 
but to strengthen the good intentions of the Prime Minister 
in future," that much enduring statesman turned and 
solemnly rebuked him for making an "inopportune and 
superficial speech."^ 

The case against the Government from the Radical 
point of view was, of course, very obvious and easy to put, 
nor was there anything particularly original about Mr. 
Labouchere's arguments. He rang the changes incessantly 
on three points: the essential injustice of our position in 
Egypt towards the Egyptians — the underlying venality of 
the Government's position owing to their connection with 
the bondholders — and the monstrous expense to the British 
taxpayer of British military intervention. It was not the 
matter of his charges, but the manner in which he made 
them that delighted the House. Sometimes he would lay 
aside his dialectical weapons and let the facts speak for 
themselves. One day he asks the Secretary for War if his 
attention has been drawn to the following statements in 
the Times of May 7 : 

Daylight broke almost imperceptibly. We were nearer the 
village of Dhakool, when the friendly scouts came running in 
with the news that the inhabitants were at prayer, and that if we 
attacked at once we should catch them. General Graham pushed 
on with a troop of the Bengal Lancers. . . . The enemy fled 
on camels in all directions, and the Mounted Infantry and Camel 
corps, coming up, gave chase. Some two hundred attempted to 
stand, and showed a disposition to come at us, but evidently 
lost heart and disappeared, not before having at least twenty 
men killed. ... It was curious to witness the desperate efforts 
of the enemy to drive their flocks up the steep mountain side, 
turning now and again to fire on the Bengal Lancers. The 
"Friendlies" tried to cut off the flocks, and succeeded in catching 

^ Hansard, April 13, 1885, vol. 296. 



220 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

some thousands of animals. . . . The village was looted and 
burnt. . . . We also destroyed the well with gun-cotton. . . . 
But, for our being unaware of the existence of some narrow hillock 
walks up which the enemy retired, we might have exterminated 
them. Our loss has been hitherto only two Mounted Infantry 
men wounded. , . . We have done the enemy all the harm we 
could, thus fulfilling the primary object of war. 

Lord Hartington could find nothing to say, but that such 
incidents were unfortunately inseparable from war. ^ 

It may be doubted, however, whether Mr. Labouchere's 
advocacy did very much for his cause, or for his own reputa- 
tion as a serious politician. The British public (and the 
House of Commons is a sort of microcosm of the British 
public) finds it hard to believe in sincerity accompanied by 
banter and persiflage. Not so are Englishmen wont to 
express their conscientious convictions. Mr. Labouchere 
was, of course, not an Englishman. He was a Frenchman 
and, as I have said before, in his mentality a lineal descend- 
ant of Voltaire. He could hardly hope to succeed where 
John Bright had failed. 

That Mr. Labouchere's attitude on the subject of Egypt 
was appreciated by the Egyptians is proved by a perusal 
of the letters he received from Arabi in exile, long after the 
subject had ceased to be a stone on which the Radical axe 
could be ground. I append some of these, and another 
letter from Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Wilfrid Bliint on the 
subject of the Exiles. 

Colombo, September 15, 1891. 
My dear Sir, — I beg the liberty to trouble you with this in 
the hope of your being able to learn more of the state of our health 
than you have been hitherto. One of the most eminent medical 
practitioners in Ceylon, Dr. Vandort, left for England in the 
last week in the German mail steamship P reus sen. I have asked 
him to call on you and Sir William Gregory and inform you of 

' Hansard, May 8, 1885, vol. 298. 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 221 

the actual state of such of us as he has attended on. By the 
death of Dr. White we lost our best evidence, and it pleased those 
in authority not to heed at all the opinion of our regular medical 
advisers and to rely on that of gentlemen who, whatever their 
high standing and attainments, had but one opportunity of 
seeing us. Had they questioned also those who attended on us 
and our families for years they might have been better able to 
form an opinion. 

I am now suffering very much from my eyes, being scarcely 
able to read anything, and am waiting until an oculist from 
Madras could examine them and tell me what I may expect. 

Pray forgive me for troubling with this letter. We have so 
few of your kind feelings and position to look up to — and if we 
are too importunate we would only beg to be pardoned. 

In the hope that you are in the enjoyment of the blessing of 
health, and begging the kind acceptance of all respectful regards — 
I remain, yours most obediently, 

A. Arabi, the Egyptian. 

Colombo, December 9, 1891. 

My dear Sir, — I had the great pleasure to receive your kind 
letters of the 2d and 8th October, and should have replied earlier 
but for having had to communicate with my brethren in exile, 
and for there being time before the next meeting of Parliament. 
We beg your kindly acceptance of our grateful thanks. 

We have been officially informed of the decision of H. M.'s 
Government on our memorial to Lord Salisbury, but for which 
we were prepared by yourself and Sir William Gregory ; and also 
by Lord de la Warr, who very kindly sent to me copies of the 
papers (Egypt, No. i, 1891), printed for both Houses of Parlia- 
ment, in March last, and of his speeches and Lord Salisbury's 
reply in May and June last. I now send copies as requested of 
the medical certificates had by Toulba Pasha and the late Abdulal 
Pasha since the memorial, also the Colonial Secretary's letter 
to us and my reply. [All these were enclosed with this letter.] 

You will permit me to ask your notice of Riaz Pasha's Memo- 
randum of July 9, 1890, to the Foreign Office concluding with: 
" H. M's Government should in any case remember that the exiles 
were pardoned and allowances granted to them on the express 



222 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

condition that they should remain at some distant spot, such as 
the island of Ceylon." On this rather qualified assertion it would 
quite do to refer to Mr. Broadley's book How we Defended Arabi 
and his Friends, where the terms of the arrangement which put 
an end to the proceedings in connection with our "trial" will be 
found. Mr. Broadley and Mr. Napier could not, as I cannot, 
in honour reveal more than they have done, but my steadfast 
friend, Mr. Blunt, was not so constrained to be reticent, and his 
communications to the Pall Mall Gazette showed what even the 
great noble-minded General Gordon believed the nature and 
extent of our exile to be. 

We should not perhaps however complain of our not being per- 
mitted to end our days in the land of our birth, although what 
harm that, or our being in Cyprus, could now do I cannot con- 
ceive. That none of us have desired or sought in the least to 
be disloyal to our parole the testimony of Sir Arthur Gordon 
to our conduct should be sufficient. If all my correspondence, 
family and other, for the last nine years were read, or any of the 
hundreds of my visitors, from every part of the world, were 
questioned, nothing would there be to show the least wish to 
disturb or stay the progress of my loved native land since my 
poor efforts failed. 

If you would kindly refer to Mr. Broadley's book you will 
find Lord Dufferin's scheme in 1883 for the reorganisation of my 
country, and my views on Egyptian reform in 1882. After nine 
years, when- almost the whole of that scheme and so many of 
my humble views have been successfully carried out, is it possible 
that any one beyond my personal enemies in my own country 
could deem me capable of even dreaming of doing anything to 
see her in misery again? My greatest trust is yet what it was 
when I wrote to the Times from my prison in 1882: "I hope the 
people of England will complete the work which I commenced. 
If England accomplishes this task, and thus really gives Egypt 
to the Egyptians, she will then make clear to the world the real 
aim and object of Arabi the Rebel" (Mr. Broadley's book, p. 
349). I cannot hope to see the time, but it must come under 
such auspices when Egypt will cease to be a "reproach to the 
nations," Islam although she be. 

My fellow exiles and I have considered much on the subject 



GLADSTONE'S EGYPTIAN POLICY 223 

of the parole you suggest in regard to Cyprus. Our simple 
parole was all that Lord Dufferin required of us when exiled. 
We gave it, and he was satisfied. We have honourably kept our 
word, and it is only now, when we find ourplace of sojourn proving 
so increasingly injurious to the health of most of us and our 
families, that we pray for a change to a more congenial climate. 
In every other respect we could not dream nor hope for a better 
home of exile. We leave ever5''thing to your judgment. If you 
think a repetition of our parole necessary, or of any use, we shall 
gladly give it again, although our first, religiously observed, has 
been so slighted ; and we shall send it to you as soon as you may 
desire it. You have done much for us, and our return for it all 
could only be gratefully felt, not expressed; and you will permit 
us to leave it to you to do for us whatever more in your judgment 
may be expedient, and, whatever that may be, permit us to 
assure you of our fullest trust. 

If any prospect of the change of residence we seek is hopeless, 
and Lord Salisbury should adhere to his wish to keep us here, I 
may but beg your best endeavour to obtain the increase of allow- 
ance I have applied for in my letter to the Colonial Secretary, 
to enable me to have the benefit of such change as the variable 
climate of this island could in some degree afford. 

I had the pleasure last week of two kind visits by Mr. J. R. 
Cox, M.P., on his return home from Australia in the Orizaba. 
He mentioned your request and his promise to see me if he came 
to Colombo, and your desire that he should learn from me all I 
had to say; and he asked me to give him a statement, which I 
have done to the best of my ability both by word of mouth and 
in writing. He said he had been long away, and had not seen 
the papers Lord de la Warr sent me until then. I need not say 
how deeply gratifying it was to hear from him of your interest 
in us and of your exertions on our behalf, and of the wide feelings 
of sympathy you have raised for us. 

You will forgive me for trespassing on your time and work 
with this long letter ; and if I have been led to say anything that 
I have troubled your attention with before, I may only beg the 
extension of your indulgence for it. Placed as I am now, able 
to think only of the past, and with no hope for life's future on 
earth, and deprived more and more of my greatest solace, study, 



224 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

by the growing weakness of sight, I fear that my communications 
to you and to those who have likewise generously extended sym- 
pathy to us in our strait are of too melancholy a tinge. As any 
prospect of better days seems all but closed to us, we may but 
bow in humble resignation and submission to the Divine Will. 
When this letter comes to you it will be your great season of joy 
and peace. Permit me and my family to offer you our best 
regards and wishes for many a happy enjoyment together and 
return of the things to you and all dear to you. — And believe me, 
yours most gratefully and sincerely, 

Ahmed Arabi, the Egyptian. 

5 Old Palace Yard, S. W., Feb. i, 1893. 

My dear Blunt, — Jingoism under Rosebery reigns supreme. 
I will, however, see if anything can be done about Arabi. Your 
details are very interesting respecting the late events in Egypt. 
Cannot the Khedive be induced to do this?: Get his Chamber 
to pass a resolution declaring that Egypt wdshes for independence 
of all European intervention, and trusts that the British occupa- 
tion will cease. If it did this we should be able to meet the per- 
sistent statements that the Fellaheen wants us and loves us. 
The Turkish Pashas might agree so as to spite us, but if once the 
country were left to itself, the Chamber could assert (?) itself. 

It is difficult to say how long the Government will last. 
Probably through the session. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 



CHAPTER X 
HENRY LABOUCHERE'S RADICALISM 

BEFORE dealing further with the part played by Labou- 
chere in Irish legislation, it will be necessary to consider 
his view of English politics as a whole. He had not at first 
been an enthusiastic partisan of Home Rule. He had even 
gone the length at Northampton of saying that he himself 
was no Home Ruler. Yet, in point of fact, no English 
member was a more zealous advocate of Irish claims than he. 
Why was this? His motives, as I have been able to gather 
them from many conversations with him on the subject, 
were twofold: His Radical soul was disgusted by what, 
in the face of the Irish attitude, was the only alternative 
to Home Rule, namely coercion, and he realised that the 
only effective way to "dish the Whigs," whom he hated 
even more than the Conservatives, was to use the Irish 
vote. 

The second motive was by far the stronger. He had a 
definite conception of Radical government to which he 
would undoubtedly have sacrificed hecatombs of Irish 
patriots if necessary. As a matter of fact, the Irish patriots 
happened to be a useful means towards his end, the estab- 
lishment of such a government. Hence his alliance with 
them. When Mr. Gladstone and his Whig-Radical Govern- 
ment were faced in 1880 with the Irish question in so acute 
a form, Labouchere saw a real possibility ahead of estab- 
lishing a Radical as distinguished from a merely Liberal 
IS 225 



226 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

Government. The protagonist of his scheme was Mr. 
Chamberlain, already a member of the Cabinet, and, in 
the natural course of events, the almost certain successor 
of the already venerable statesman whose name had become 
the war-cry of English Liberalism. 

With Mr. Chamberlain as Prime Minister almost any- 
thing might happen: the Lords and the Church might go, 
England might become, in all save the name, a republic. 
Mr. Chamberlain was the one statesman with whom he 
found himself in complete agreement as to the articles of 
the Radical faith, and in his future he saw the future of the 
party and of England. He wrote to him on July 3, 1883: 
"I was caught young and sent to America; there I imbibed 
the political views of the country, so that my Radicalism 
is not a joke, but perfectly earnest. My opinion on most of 
the institutions of this country is that of Americans — that 
they are utterly absurd and ridiculous. Nothing would 
give me greater pleasure than to see you leader of the House 
of Commons, with a Parliament pledged to the most drastic 
reforms. This is the aim of my humble endeavours, but, 
in the nature of things, a member below the gangway has 
not the same responsibilities as a Minister, and, if he is a 
Radical, necessarily is more advanced than a composite 
Cabinet. He has, too, to make motions or to hold his tongue. 
For instance, my amendment yesterday evening on titles 
was regarded in the House of Commons as a joke. But go 
to any meeting of even Liberals, and you would find that 
it was essentially a popular one. The real trouble in the 
House of Commons is that the Radicals below the gangway 
are such a miserable lot, and seem ashamed of their opinions. 
The Whigs, on the contrary, out of office act solidly together. 
This leads the pubHc to suppose that your views are in a 
small minority in the House of Commons. If the Whigs 
are ready to pull a coach half way to what they consider a 
precipice, they must be greater fools than I take them to be. 
They do not act openly, but they conspire secretly. So long, 



HENRY LABOUCHERE'S RADICALISM 227 

however, as they consent to work in harness, they ought to 
be encouraged. You have told them the goal, and I am 
certain that this declaration has done more to strengthen 
radicalism than anything that has happened for long. So 
I am perfectly contented, and quite ready to leave well 

alone." 

Alas for the schemes of mortals! The very element on 
which Labouchere rehed for the strengthening of the Radical 
cause in the Cabinet was to prove to Mr. Chamberlain him- 
self the parting of the ways. The statesman who was to 
reach the highest power on the shoulders of Irish voters, 
when it came to the point, would have none of such support. 
The corner-stone fell out of the grandiose edifice that Labou- 
chere had planned, the palace of Armida crumbled in the 
dust. Bitter, indeed, was his disappointment. It was 
characteristic of him in these circumstances to lose his head 
and throw up the game. The reader will remember how, 
as a boy, he described his own character at the gaming-table: 
"In playing even I failed because, although I theoretically 
discovered systems by which I was likely to win, yet in 
practice I could command myself so little that, upon a slight 
loss, I left all to chance." He lacked the patience or the 
industry of mind to reconstruct his schemes, and when Mr. 
Chamberlain was lost to the Radical party, Labouchere's 
constructive imagination seems never to have recovered 
the blow. He continued the war with abuse of privilege, 
absurdity consecrated by tradition, and the other heads of 
the hydra with which his party fought, but the tone of his 
attacks was not the same as before the Home Rule split. 
Too often they degenerated into mere party criticism, the 
note of personal invective, one might almost say of spite, 
becoming more prominent in them. He had lost faith in 
success, because the combination by which he had hoped to 
win had failed, and he could not, or would not, think out 
another. It was this consciousness of failure — of personal 
failure as he saw it, so closely had he identified himself with 



228 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

his hopes — that inspired the peculiar bitterness with which, 
in and out of season, he attacked the statesman whom he 
held responsible for the altered situation. He did not, as 
his correspondence will show, give up hope for some time 
of Mr. Chamberlain's return to the party, but, when he had 
at last given up all such hope, nothing was too bad for "Joe." 
In the pages of Truth, in the Reform Club, in the lobby of the 
House of Commons, he constantly held forth to all who would 
read or listen on the "crimes" of the man who had divided 
the Liberal party against itself. He manifested no such 
bitterness against Bright or Hartington; but when Mr. 
Chamberlain fell from grace, he fell as no private individual, 
but as the symbol of the Radical party. With him, accord- 
ing to Labouchere, the party fell, and with the party his 
immediate hopes for the regeneration of England. Those 
hopes had, with ample justification for their existence, run 
high when Messrs. Chamberlain and Dilke joined Mr. 
Gladstone's administration in 1880. Labouchere based his 
scheme on the permanence of Mr. Chamberlain's Radicalism, 
and upon the fact that, in the natural course of events, a 
successor would very shortly have to be found for Mr. 
Gladstone. Both these, at the time, reasonable previsions 
were falsified by destiny. Mr. Gladstone remained for 
another fourteen years leader of the party, and Mr. Cham- 
berlain became a Liberal Unionist. The years between 
1880 and 1887 were, in so far as his political life was con- 
cerned, the most important of Labouchere's life. Until he 
saw that his game was finally spoiled by a totally unexpected 
fall of the cards, he did not for one instant relax his efforts 
to reach the end towards which he had planned to work. 
His patience was remarkable, his foresight imcanny, except 
in the all-important direction from which the blow that 
finally shattered his hopes descended. 

It is interesting, in the light of subsequent events, to 
read the article which he wrote for the February number of 
the Fortnightly Review in 1884, in which he set forth with 



HENRY LABOUCHERE'S RADICALISM 229 

characteristic freedom of expression his views upon Radicals 
as differing from Whigs. "A Radical," he declares eariy in 
the article, "has been defined as an earnest Liberal," and he 
goes on to describe, in uncompromising terms, the faith of 
the earnest Liberal— or true Radical. "The Government 
Bill," he wrote, "assimilating the Coimty to the Borough 
Franchise is to be encouraged, although it does not go far 
enough, to the extent, i.e., of Adult manhood suffrage. It 
will be for Radicals to take care strenuously to oppose every 
scheme which is a sham and not a reality. Let us all who 
are good Liberals labour to obtain a good suffrage Bill and 
a good redistribution Bill. This will strengthen our Par- 
liamentary position, and we may fairly anticipate that 
Manhood Suffrage, electoral districts, triennial Pariiaments, 
and payment of members will follow." The following 
extract shows very clearly Mr. Labouchere's opinions on 
what may be called the technique of legislation: 

"The Hfe of a Parhament is too long. Three years is 
the maximum period for which it should be elected. At the 
end of this time it is out of touch with the electorates. 
Promises and pledges made at the hustings are evaded, 
because each member thinks they will be forgotten before 
he has again to seek the suffrages of his electors; whilst 
Ministers are too apt to put off, until the period for a fresh 
election approaches, any drastic legislation to which they 
are pledged as leaders of their party. It is probable that, 
were the duration of Parhament hmited to three years, as 
much poHtical legislation would take place in this period 
as is now the case in the five or six years which is the average 
life of a Parhament. The fear of a speedy reckoning with 
electors would be ever before the eyes of Ministers and 
members. The 'Can't you leave it alone?' of Lord Mel- 
bourne would be replaced by ' We must do much and do it 
speedily, for the day of reckoning is near at hand. ' Long 
Parliaments are as fatal to sound business as long credits 
are to sound trade. It is questionable, indeed, whether 



230 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

three years is not too long for the duration of a Parliament. 
We should move in all probability more quickly, were the 
nation to insist upon an annual stocktaking." 

The arguments, from the democratic point of view, in 
favour of the payment of members are thus set forth : 

" The payment of members would do more to democratise 
our legislature, and consequently our legislation, than any 
other measure that can be conceived. At present, members, 
as a rule, are rich men. Many of them mean well, but they 
fatally take a rich man's view of all matters, and are far too 
much inclined to think that everything is for the best in a 
world where, although there may be many blanks, they at 
least have drawn a prize in life's lottery. So long as the 
choice of the poor men is between this and that rich man, so 
long will our legislation run in the groove of class prejudice. 
The poor man will not be the social equal of the rich man, 
and our laws will be made rather with a view to the happiness 
and interests of the few than of the many. All who are 
Conservative in heart know this, and for this reason the 
payment of members, which is the natural outcome of a 
recognition that a labourer is worthy of his hire, finds in 
them such bitter opponents. If a Minister is paid for being 
a Minister, it is only logical that a member should be paid 
for being a member. People must live. To refuse payment 
to members is to limit the choice of electorates to those very 
men who are not likely to see things with the same eyes as 
the majority of the men who constitute the electorates. 
Parliaments should be composed of rich men and of poor 
men. No one would advocate the exclusion of rich men. 
Why, then, should a condition of things continue which 
practically results in the exclusion of the poor man?" 

Never has the Radical view of the House of Lords and 
the Crown been more forcibly expressed than in the following : 

"The Whigs seem to know that -is in favour of the 

abolition of a House of hereditary legislators. Let us hope 
that they are correct. We are frequently told that the 



HENRY LABOUCHERE'S RADICALISM 231 

people love, honour, and respect the House of Lords. Let 
any one who entertains this notion allude to this assembly 
at a popular political gathering in any part of the country, 
and he will find his illusion rudely dispelled. There are 
earnest Radicals who hold that there ought to be two legis- 
lative Chambers, and not one ; although why they think so, 
it is difficult to say, for in every country where the two- 
Chamber system prevails, either one of them has become a 
mere useless court of registration, or the two are engaged in 
perpetual disputes, to the great detriment of public business. 
No Radical, however, is in favour of our existing Upper 
Chamber. If he were, he would not be a Radical. What 
an hereditary legislator ought to be is well described by 
Burke in his letter to the Duke of Bedford. What our 
hereditary legislators are we know by bitter experience. 
They almost all belong to one particular class — that of the 
great landlords. When any attempt is made to deal with 
the gross absurdities of our land system, they rally almost 
to a man to its defence, not from natural depravity, but 
from the natural bias of every one to consider that what 
benefits him must be for the best. The majority of them 
are Conservatives; even those who call themselves Liberals 
are the mildest of Whigs. When a Conservative Administra- 
tion is in power they are harmless for good or evil. When 
a Liberal Administration is in power they are actively evil. 
Such an administration represents the deliberate will of the 
nation. Before bringing in a Bill, however, it has to be 
toned down, lest it should meet with opposition in the Lords. 
Nevertheless it does meet with opposition there. The Lords 
do not throw it out, but emasculate it with amendments; 
then when it comes back to the Commons a bargain is struck 
that, if the Commons will agree to some of these amendments, 
the Lords will not insist upon the others. Thus, no matter 
what may be the majority possessed by a Liberal ministry 
in the House of Commons, it can never legislate as it wishes, 
but in a sense between what it wishes and what the Conserva- 



232 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

tive majority in the Lords wish. In great and important 
questions it almost always obeys its Leader like a flock of 
sheep, and thus one man is able to provoke a dissolution, 
not only when he thinks that this is in the interests of the 
country, but when he imagines it to be in the interests of 
his party. It is asserted that the House of Lords is useful 
because its, rejection of a Bill is an appeal to the country 
against a House of Commons which is acting in opposition 
to the popular will. It is not easy to understand on what 
grounds the Lords are supposed to know what the popular 
will is; and, indeed, they never do, for there is not one single 
case on record where, when the Lords have appealed to the 
country against a decision of the House of Commons, the 
verdict has gone in favour of the former. Although rich, 
the peers are not independent. They are, in fact, remark- 
able for their abnormal greed. Because they are by the 
chance of birth legislators, they insist upon decorations, 
distinctions, and salaries being showered upon them and 
their relations. In the Financial Reform Almanack for 
this year there is an interesting calculation of the amounts 
that living dukes, marquises, and earls, and their relations, 
and those that have died since 1850, have received out of 
the public exchequer. The dukes figure for £9,760,000, 
the marquises for £8,305,950, and the earls for £48,181,292; 
total £66,247,242. The voracity of a vestryman is nothing 
to compare with that of the British nobleman. Eighty- 
three peers are privy councillors ; 55 have received decorations ; 
192 are connected with the army and navy; 62 are railway 
directors; their total rental is £11,872,333, and they possess 
14,251,132 acres; yet in pay and pensions they absorb 
annually £639,865, and whenever there is a change of ad- 
ministration they clamour for well-paid sinecures about the 
Court, and other such sops, like a pack of hungry hounds. 
Les soutiens de VEtat indeed! Comme une corde soutient 
un pendul The greater number of them are obscure thanes, 
who never take an active part in legislation or attend in their 



HENRY LABOUCHERE»S RADICALISM 233 

seats; and they are summoned to London by their party 
leader whenever it is necessary to vote down some Liberal 
enactment, which has been passed after long and careful 
consideration by the elected representatives of the nation, 
and for this service to the State they generally insist upon 
receiving an equivalent — a ribbon, a Lord Lieutenancy, or 
an office for a relative or a dependent. . . . 

"Radicals are essentially practical, and are not accus- 
tomed to waste or misdirect their energies. They do not 
approve of the fuss and feathers of a Court, and they regard 
its ceremonies with scant respect, for they are inclined to 
think that they conduce to a servile spirit, which is degrad- 
ing to humanity. They admit, however, that the scheme 
of a monarch who reigns but does not rule has its advantages 
in an empire such as ours, where a connecting link between 
the mother country and the colonies is desirable. Their 
objection to the present state of things is mainly based upon 
financial grounds. Admitting that there is to be a hereditary 
figure-head, they cannot understand why it should cost so 
much, why funds which are voted to the monarch should be 
expended in salaries to noblemen for the performance of 
ceremonial service, or why the children of the monarch 
should receive such enormous annuities." He quoted an 
occasion when the disloyalty of Radicals was supposed to 
have been amply proved. One of them had voted for an 
amendment of Sir Charles Dilke when Lord Beaconsfield's 
Government had proposed an allowance of £25,000 per 
annum to the Duke of Connaught. "It would have been 
more to the purpose to show," he said, "why this young 
gentleman should receive so very ample a pension for con- 
descending to be the son of his parents. Nothing has 
conduced more to shake that decent respect for the living 
symbol of the State, which goes by the name of royalty, 
than the ever-recurring rattle of the money-box. Radicals 
do not perceive why the children of the monarch should be 
made public pensioners any more than the children of the 



234 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

Lord Chancellor. They know that Her Majesty lives in 
retirement, and that she has a wholesome contempt for the 
costly ceremonies of a Court ; they are aware that as a neces- 
sary consequence she has sufficient accumulations to keep 
her children in comfort. They ask, therefore, why their 
maintenance should be thrown on the country, and why, if 
so, this should be on so very costly a scale. They consider, 
it is true, that Her Majesty has too large a Civil List; yet 
although they are not deceived by the 'pious fraud' which 
assumes that the monarch is the owner of the Crown domains 
and surrenders them on accession to the throne in considera- 
tion of a money equivalent for what they produce, they have 
no burning desire to interfere with existing arrangements 
during the lifetime of the present incimibent, for they have 
a sincere respect for the Queen, not only as the constitutional 
head of the State, but also on account of her excellent per- 
sonal qualities. They are of opinion, however, that when 
provision is asked for the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, 
this will be a fitting opportunity to inaugurate an entire 
change in the financial relations of the Crown with the 
country." 

The Established Church, education, and the Land Laws 
are thus drastically treated. 

" The income of the Establishment is close upon £5,000,- 
000 per annum. It is the Church of a minority. The greater 
portion of its revenues were acquired by confiscation. Its 
division of them amongst its clergy is in defiance of all rule 
and justice. Cures of souls are matters of public barter. 
Only the other day the secretary of a race-course company 
bought the next presentation to a living in order to ensure 
that the views of the next pastor should be sound on the 
question of racing. In every country except this the prin- 
ciple has been recognised that so-called ecclesiastical pro- 
perty is national property. In some countries this principle 
has been pushed to its ultimate consequences, in others it 
has received a more restricted application. Were we all 



HENRY LABOUCHERE'S RADICALISM 235 

members of the Established Church there might be some 
plea for our devoting a portion of our property to the main- 
tenance of the Church's employes. But the majority of us 
are not churchmen. Why then should we perpetuate so 
invidious an application of national funds? The vested 
rights of living incumbents should be respected, and perhaps 
it would be only fair that the Church should retain those 
funds that she has received from the liberality of private 
donors within the last few years. On an excessive estimate 
this would amount to £1,000,000 per annum. We require 
the remaining £4,000,000 per annum for educational pur- 
poses, and we mean to have them. . . . 

"Whilst all Radicals are agreed that our land system 
requires a thorough reform, all are perhaps not in accord as 
to the details of that reform. Some are followers of Mr. 
George and demand the nationalisation of land; others — 
and these are the wiser — whilst admitting that it is to be 
regretted that the paramount proprietorship of the com- 
munity has been almost entirely ignored, hardly see their 
way to resume it absolutely, nor do they admit that a person 
who has acquired a legal title to a freehold can be divested 
of it without fair compensation. All, however, are agreed 
that real estate has, in contradistinction to personal estate, 
certain inherent qualities : it is limited in quantity, and it is 
a natural instrument; consequently, the State has a right 
to regulate the conditions of its tenure, and its transmission 
from one individual to another. We would legislate to 
break up and destroy all huge domains ; to make the occupier 
to all practical intents the master of the soil which he culti- 
vates, and to secure to him not only fixity of tenure and 
independence of a landlord's rules and caprices, but the 
enjoyment of these rights at a fair and reasonable price. 
A long succession of landlord legislatures have, in the words 
of Mr. Cobden, 'robbed and bamboozled the people for 
ages. ' All our laws affecting land have been made in order 
to perpetuate its tenure in the hands of the few from genera- 



236 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

tion to generation; to render its purchase difficult and ex- 
pensive; to free its owners from taxes and obligations, in 
consideration of which their predecessors acquired lordship 
over it from the State; and to give it an artificial value by- 
securing to its possessors social and political pre-eminence. 
That there should be few Radicals amongst landlords is less 
surprising than that any one who is not a landlord should 
remain outside the Radical pale. To suppose that when 
Radicals have the power to place our land laws in harmony 
with the good of the greatest numbers, or to imagine that 
they will allow the imperia in imperio of huge domains to 
continue, is to suppose that they will take to their heart of 
hearts their 'robbers and bamboozlers.' Landlords are a 
mistake socially, politically, and economically. The only 
true proprietary rights in land are a reasonable interest on 
sums spent in rendering it more productive, and this only 
so long as the outlay continues to produce this result; to 
talk of any other natural proprietary rights is as absurd as 
it would be to talk of a man having a natural property in 
the air that we breathe. It is too late now, however, to 
revert to first principles. We must accept facts and endeav- 
our to make the best of them. This we propose to do, and, 
as a preliminary step, we demand the renewed imposition 
of the land-tax at four shillings in the pound upon the full 
true yearly value at a rack rent; that there should be no 
more subventions in aid of local taxation from imperial 
funds largely derived from taxation on food and drink; and 
that landlords who will not use their land themselves should 
be made to give it up to those who are ready and anxious to 
use it." 

Towards the end of the article Mr. Labouchere delivers 
himself somewhat tentatively on the Irish question as 
follows : 

"It was said in the first session of the present Parliament 
— and no one was more fond of using this argument than 
Mr. Gladstone — that the limited number of Mr. Pamell's 



HENRY LABOUCHERE'S RADICALISM 237 

Parliamentary followers proved that the majority of the 
constituencies was not with him. Later on, when the error 
of this estimate of his strength was perceived, it was alleged 
that his influence was alone secured by terrorism. Slowly 
it had dawned upon the English mind that the vast majority 
of Irishmen, rightly or wrongly, cordially and truly sym- 
pathise with him. No one now questions that he will sweep 
Ireland at the next General Election. On the doctrine of 
probabilities, this will make him the arbiter between parties 
at St. Stephen's. How is this to be met? The only sug- 
gestion put forward as yet has been that both parties should 
agree that the Irish vote is not to count on a party division. 
But does any sane human being imagine that such a scheme 
is practicable? The 'ins' would always assent to it, but the 
'outs' would defer their assent until they became the 'ins.' 
It is indeed becoming every day more and more clear that 
we must either allow the Irish votes to reckon as other votes, 
or that we must boldly assert that Ireland shall no longer 
be represented in Parliament, because we disagree with the 
representatives that it chooses. There is no middle course; 
and, if we accept the former, we shall have to allow Ireland 
hereafter to decide as she best pleases on matters that only 
locally regard her. Most Radicals would be of opinion that 
one Parliament for the entire United Kingdom is a better 
system that one for Great Britain and another for Ireland. 
But they would go a long way to estabHsh a fair modus 
Vivendi between the two islands, and nothing that Mr. Par- 
nell has ever said can be adduced to show that he does not 
entertain the same desire. Most of his views recommend 
themselves to Radicals, especially those in regard to land. 
... If the Irish wish for Home Rule why should they not 
have it? It surely would be easy to conceive a plan in which 
that island would have a representative assembly that would 
legislate upon all matters, except those reserved to the 
Imperial Parliament. These reservations might be pre- 
cisely the same as those which the American Constitution 



238 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

reserves to Congress in her relations with State Govern- 
ments. Mr. Gladstone seemed inclined to accept this 
solution in 1882, for, in a speech diiring the session of that 
year, he asked the Irish members to submit their plan to the 
House of Commons, whilst the only objection that occurred 
to him was, that it might be difficult to find an arbiter be- 
tween the Imperial and the Irish legislature in case of any 
conflict of jurisdiction — a difficulty which a cursory glance 
at the American Constitution would have solved. The 
Irish are sound upon almost every question; they are even 
more democratically inclined than we are. We want their 
aid and they want our aid. Irish, English, and Scotch Radi- 
cals should coalesce. Mutual concessions may be necessary, 
but this is always the case in political alliances. That the 
Irish should not love the English connection is hardly sur- 
prising. We are only nov/ beginning to do them justice, 
and we have accompanied this modicum of justice with a 
Coercion Act, aimed not only at crime, but at legitimate 
political agitation. If we remove their grievances, if we 
make Irishmen the true rulers of Ireland, and if we cease 
to meddle in matters that concern them and not us, there 
is no reason to suppose that they would wish to separate 
from us any more than our colonies. Separation woiild, 
indeed, be as disadvantageous to them as to us." 

A year or two later he giive clear expression to the same 
Radical faith in the House of Commons in a speech which he 
made on his own amendment to the motion that Mr. Speaker 
do now leave the chair: "That in the opinion of this House 
it is contrary to the true principles of representative Govern- 
ment, and injurious to their efficiency, that any person 
should be a member of one House of the Legislature by right 
of birth, and it is therefore desirable to put an end to any 
such existing rights." "It has been pointed out to him," 
he said, "that these words might include Her Majesty, 
which, of course, was not intended . . . they had been 
engaged in democratising, as far as they could, the Commons 



HENRY LABOUCHERE'S RADICALISM 239 

branch of the Legislature; but all their efforts would be 
abortive, all their efforts at Parliamentary reform would be 
illusory, if they allowed side by side with that House a 
Legislative Assembly to exist, which, in its nature, was 
aristocratic, and which had a right to tamper with and veto 
the decisions of the nation, which were registered by the 
House of Commons. . . . Members of the House of Lords 
were neither elected nor selected for their merits. They sat 
by the merits of their ancestors, and, if we looked into the 
merits of some of those ancestors, we should agree that the 
less said about them the better. The House of Lords con- 
sisted of a class most dangerous to the community — the 
class of rich men, the greater part of whose fortune was in 
land. It was asserted of them that the House of Lords was 
recruited from the wisest and best in the country — that the 
Lords were so wise and good that, in some mysterious way, 
they were able to transmit their virtues to future generations 
in secula seculorum. The practice in the selection of those 
gentlemen was not quite in accordance with this theory. 
They consisted generally of two classes — of those who were 
apparently successful politicians, and of those who were 
imdoubtedly successful money-grubbers. He would take 
a few examples, and, as he did not wish to be invidious, he 
would take them from both sides of the House. They all 
knew and appreciated Sir R. Assheton Cross, Mr. Sclater 
Booth, Sir Thomas Brassey, and Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen. 
What did they think of these gentlemen? As members of 
this House everybody respected and liked them; but they 
were looked upon as decent sort of mediocrities of the ordin- 
ary quality, which was converted, in course of time, into 
administrative Ministers. Take another class. Why were 
brewers selected as peers? Simply because they, of late, 
had accumulated very large fortunes by the sale of intoxicat- 
ing liquors, and for no other reason. The names of Guinness, 
Bass, and AUsopp had been long household words in every 
public house in the country, but who ever heard of them as 



240 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

politicians? Yet these gentlemen were considered to be the 
very best men in the country to be converted into hereditary 
peers. Another class who made money were the financiers. 
Lord Rothschild inherited a large fortune, and had increased 
that fortune, and no doubt spent his money in the most 
honourable way; but Lord Rothschild did nothing in the 
House of Commons in any way to distinguish himself. 
With brewers, when one was made a peer another must be 
made a peer for advertisement. So with financial houses; 
when a Rothschild was made a peer, it was necessary to fish 
up some one of the name of Baring, and one was converted 
into Lord Revelstoke — a, gentleman who, though probably 
eminent in city circles, was hardly known to any one in that 
House, and who had never taken part in politics. So much 
for the composition of the House of Lords. . . . Deducting 
representative peers from Scotland and Ireland, and deduct- 
ing members of the Royal family, and deducting bishops 
and archbishops, he found 470 peers sitting as hereditary 
peers in the House of Lords. He found that those peers 
had annually distributed among them £389,163, amounting 
on an average to £820 each (salaries from appointments 
under Civil List) — these rich men who would, with one ac- 
cord, protest against the payment of members of the House 
of Commons. These were the rich men who were found 
at public meetings denouncing members from Ireland as a 
wretched crew, because, being mainly poor men, they re- 
ceived enough to enable them to live from their constituents. 
The peers were almost as careful of their relations as of 
themselves. In a valuable publication he saw it put down 
that, from 1874 to 1886, no fewer than 7000 relatives of peers 
had had places of emolument under the Government. . . . 
In the other House there were 120 Privy Councillors, of 
whom he ventured to say the majority had never heard. 
Orders had to be found for these gentlemen. Almost every 
one of them had a decoration. There were three decorations 
which were absolutely made for peers and for no other body — 



HENRY LABOUCHERE'S RADICALISM 241 

the Garter, the Order of St. Patrick, and the Thistle. Wal- 
pole had decHned a decoration ' because, ' he said, ' why bribe 
myself?' Lord Melbourne said of the Garter that its pleas- 
ing feature was that there was 'no nonsense of merit about 
it. ' An impression existed that private Bill legislation was 
more independent in the House of Lords than in that House. 
He did not think it was. . . . No men looked better after 
the class interests of those to whom they belonged than the 
peers. They were great landowners; 16,000,000 acres be- 
longed to them. Yet our Land Laws were a disgrace to the 
country and tainted with feudalism. . . . This House of 
Lords was not collectively any worse than any six hundred 
men would be. They were ex necessitate a Tory House and 
a House of partisans. The assertion that they subordinated 
public interests to their private class and party interests 
was merely tantamount to saying that they were human 
beings. A House of Artisans would act on similar principles. 
. . . His amendment went to the root of the evil. He at 
first thought of including bishops, but he struck them out on 
the principle of de minimis non curat lex. If the hereditary 
principle were done away with, what the honourable mem- 
ber for Birmingham called 'the incestuous union between 
the spiritual and the political world' would cease of itself. 
His amendment would not prejudice the question of whether 
there ought to be two Chambers or one only. Personally 
he was in favour of one, but those who voted with him need 
not necessarily support him on that particular point. Other 
countries which had two had simply followed our example, 
and it was a mere result of chance that we happened to have 
two. If they agreed, the second was useless; if they dis- 
agreed, the second was pernicious. If the functions of an 
Upper Chamber were to be properly fulfilled by those who 
soared above party and class interest, we must not look for 
its members in this world, but we must bring down angels 
from Heaven; but, as that would be difficult, there was one 
other alternative. The Conservatives at their meetings 
16 



242 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

always shouted, 'Thank God we have a House of Lords!* 
Radicals had no intention to remain any longer supinely 
like toads under the harrow of the House of Lords. They 
intended to agitate until thej'' could say: 'Thank God we 
have not an hereditary House of Lords!' " 

Mr. Labouchere's amendment on that occasion was 
defeated by a majority of 61 in a House of 385 members. 
On November 21, 1884, Labouchere had moved the following 
resolution: "That in view of the fact that the Conservative 
party is able and has for many years been able, through its 
permanent majority in the House of Lords, to alter, defeat, 
or delay legislation, although that legislation has been recom- 
mended by the responsible advisers of the Crown, and ap- 
proved by the nation through its elected representatives, 
it is desirable to make such alterations in the relations of the 
two Houses of Parliament as will effect a remedy to this 
state of things." Sir Wilfrid Lawson, in seconding the 
resolution, said that he remembered a few years ago Mr. 
Labouchere giving notice of a very similar resolution. He 
asked him if he thought a House could be made for it. Mr. 
Labouchere had answered, "No, I do not think there will 
be, for all the Radicals want to be made peers." The mem- 
ber for Northampton prophesied truly, for not forty members 
could be got to come down. 

With untiring patience, however, Mr. Labouchere moved 
a resolution of the same nature almost every year that he 
was in Parliament. His perseverance on the subject was 
only matched by the dogged persistence with which he 
attacked the ridiculous appurtenances inseparable from the 
upkeep of a constitutional monarchy. When he was asked 
by Captain Fred Burnaby once at Homburg why he was 
always attacking the Royal family, who after all were well 
meaning people, he replied: "One must find some very solid 
institution to be able to attack it in comfort. If the love 
of royalty were not so firmly established in the middle-class 
English breast, I should not dream of attacking it, for the 



HENRY LABOUCHERE'S RADICALISM 243 

institution might topple over, and then what should I do? 
I should have all the trouble of finding something else to 
tilt against." 

Another expression of his views on the Establishment is 
found in his speech on Mr. Albert Grey's amendment on the 
occasion of the Second Reading of the Church Patronage 
Bill. "From a Radical standpoint," he said, "it was un- 
desirable that there should be an Establishment at all, and 
there seemed to be no reason why they should be continually 
tinkering up and remedying this and that abuse in connection 
with the Church. ... He agreed with the Secretary of 
State that this Bill did not go far enough, if it granted com- 
pensation in the case of those who now held livings. To sell 
a cure of souls had always been regarded as a most monstrous 
iniquity, and why should they give compensation to those 
who were enjoying what was wrong? They might as well 
suggest that Simon Magus himself should have had com- 
pensation. There was another preposterous clause in the 
Bill. These advowsons could only be sold to the great 
landlords and the lords of the manor. If the livings were 
sold at all, they should be sold to anybody who might be 
ready to buy them. But why should the great landlords — 
the race he should be glad to see cleared off the land — ^why 
should the great landlords and lords of the manor be allowed 
to buy livings while other people were not? . . . There 
was no doubt that matters would be infinitely improved if 
the parishioners had the right to veto the appointment of 
clergymen. But the amendment did not go far enough. 
Why was there only to be a veto? Why not allow the 
parishioners to elect any clergyman they liked? Why was 
the bishop to be the only person to be allowed to have a veto? 
If the majority of the people in a locality were dissenters, 
he thought they should not be compelled to elect a Church 
of England clergyman. He was opposed to all this tinkering 
of the Church of England, which should be disestablished 
and disendowed. . . . He was quite ready to leave the 



244 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

Church such amounts as had been given to it within the 
last twenty years; but he had seen calculations made that, 
deducting these amounts, a sum of about £5,000,000 per 
annum ought to come to the public. That sum was the 
property not of a sect, but of the English people who paid 
it, and he should like to see a Bill introduced dealing with 
glebe lands. These glebe lands were, he believed, the worst 
cultivated in the country, and it would be infinitely better 
to redistribute them in allotments amongst the deserving 
labourers of the village than to leave them in the hands of 
the clergymen. When his honourable friend brought in a 
Bill dealing with glebe lands, and giving back to them the 
£5,000,000 of which they were now deprived for the benefit 
of a sect, then he would give him his most cordial support." 
And so on. 

In the June of 1884 he made one of his common-sense 
speeches on the subject of the enfranchisement of women. 
It occurred during the debate on the Representation of the 
People Bill. " It may be that we should enfranchise women," 
he said, "but because we have enfranchised men is no reason 
that we should do so. We may discuss the subject elo- 
quently, we may refer to Joan of Arc and Boadicea, but, 
in point of fact, from the time of Eve till now there has been 
a distinct difference between men and women. There are 
a great many things which I am ready to admit women can 
do better than men, and there are other things which I think 
men can do better than women. Each have their separate 
functions, and the question is whether the function of elec- 
toral power is a function which women would adequately 
discharge. I do not think it is. As yet I understand that 
no country has really given women the vote; and were it 
not that honourable gentlemen opposite, who are generally 
averse to giving the franchise to any large body of men, 
think, and think justly, that a very large majority of women 
would vote for Conservatives, I should be surprised at their 
making this desperate leap in the dark. Some honourable 



HENRY LABOUCHERE»S RADICALISM 245 

members on this side of the House have told us that women 
are better than men. That is the language of poetry. But 
when we come to facts I am not at all disposed to admit that 
women are better than men. It is not a question of whether 
women are angels or not, but whether they will make good 
electors . . . the honourable member has told us that he 
was convinced of this because Queen Anne was a great queen ; 
and he told us also that Elizabeth was a great queen. But 
Anne was not a great queen, and Elizabeth had the intellect 
of a man with the weaknesses of a woman. The honourable 
member also spoke of Queen Christina of Sweden, but every 
one knows that she was one of the most execrable queens 
that ever lived, for, after being deposed by her subjects, 
she went to Paris and murdered her secretary. We learn 
that, by the operation of natiire, more women are born into 
the world than men, that women live longer than men, and 
that a considerable number of men leave the kingdom as 
soldiers and sailors, while women remain at home. In 
consequence of this there are, at any given moment, a greater 
number of women than men in the country. I am told that 
in every county, with the exception of Hampshire, more 
women would be put on the register than men if we had 
woman suffrage. And what would be the consequence? They 
would look to the interests of women ; they would band them- 
selves together, and we should have them, of course, asking to 
be admitted to this House; and then, if they were admitted, 
instead of being on an equality with them, we should put 
ourselves imder petticoat government ; we should have women 
opposite, women on these benches, and a woman perhaps in 
the chair. They would, of course, like women everywhere, 
have their own way. The honourable member had hesitated 
as to whether he would give the vote to married women as 
well as to unmarried women, and, by his mode of dealing 
with the question, it would seem that he gave to vice what 
he denied to virtue. As long as a woman remains a spinster, 
it appears that she is to have the vote, but that, so soon as 



246 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

she marries, she is to cease to be an elector; she is to lose 
her rights if she enters into the holy and honourable state 
of matrimony, and, if her husband dies, she is again to get 
the vote. When Napoleon was asked by Mme. de Stael 
who was the best woman in the State, he said: 'Madame, 
the woman who has the most children, ' " 

It will be seen from the above extract that his opinion 
of the female sex was eariy Victorian, and so it remained to 
the end of his life. He was always a bitter opponent of 
woman suffrage; and when, in 1896, a petition for the Suf- 
frage signed by 257,000 women from all parts of the United 
Kingdom was exhibited, "by kind permission of the Home 
Secretary," in Westminster Hall on a series of tables for the 
inspection of members, he immediately called the attention 
of the Speaker that afternoon in the House to the "unseemly 
display," and insisted upon its removal. 

He was indefatigable in his efforts to introduce economical 
Radical finance into every detail of government, always 
assuring his hearers that he was fighting for the principle 
of economy, and not merely against the mere absurdity of 
the existence of certain traditional offices and extravagances. 
In 1885 we find him requesting the Attorney-General to do 
his best to suppress the offices of Trainbearer, Pursebearer, 
and Clerk of the Petty Bag. He protested ably against the 
large sums spent upon the upkeep of the royal yacht, and 
upon the "objectionable practice" of asking the Commons 
to vote a sum of money for special packets for conveyance 
of distinguished persons to and from England. He pro- 
tested against the nation being asked to pay the expenses 
incurred in the ceremony of making the present King (then 
Prince George of Wales) a Knight of the Garter. He was, 
in short, unceasingly vigilant wherever the spending of public 
money was concerned, and his remarks were usually practical 
and to the point. A quotation from a letter he wrote to the 
Times in the same year on the Graduated Income Tax will 
be of interest, as peculiarly illustrative of his clear and simple 



HENRY LABOUCHERE'S RADICALISM 247 

view of the rights of the poor man versus those of the rich 
man. "The income tax," he wrote, "when first put on by 
Mr. Pitt, was a graduated tax. No one then regarded this 
as a spoliation or confiscation. That a rich man should pay 
a higher percentage of taxation than a poor man is based 
upon what Mr. Stuart Mill terms 'equality of sacrifice.' 
It will, I presume, he admitted by all that the first call upon 
a man's income is that portion of it which is necessary for 
him and his family to eat, to be clothed, and to secure some 
sort of home. If a man earns only £50 per annum, and has 
an average family of two children, let me ask what remains 
after this call has been met? Nothing. And if he has to 
pay taxes, he and his family are obliged to go without a 
sufficiency of clothing, or without a fitting home. Now 
look at the case of a man with £50,000 per annum, and with 
a family of the same size. He pays in taxation about 4^% 
on his income — let us say 5%. This absorbs £2500. He 
may secure to himself and them not only all necessaries, but 
all comforts, for £500 per annum. Surely the sacrifice on 
his part to the exigencies of the State of £7000 per annum 
would not be so great a one as would be that of £2, los. per 
annum by the man with an income of £50 per annum. As 
a matter of fact, however, the rich man pays at present 
a maximum of 5%, and the poor man about twice that 
percentage. ..." 

He made a speech in the Radical Club at North Camber- 
well on November 14, 1885, in which he once more resumed 
his creed, and with it I must end this chapter, so as to proceed 
with the history of the practice to which he put his theories. 
" In the House of Commons," he said, " Radicals had hitherto 
been in a very small minority, and were not appreciated, 
and it was therefore gratifying to him as a strong Radical to 
find what they did in the House of Commons was appreci- 
ated by those who made the House of Commons. For his 
own part he was bound to say he could not form any clear 
idea of what 'Conservative' meant now. In the past. Con- 



248 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

servatives were a party banded together to support the 
landed interest, but Lord Randolph Churchill told them that 
this was to be all forgotten, and that the Conservatives were 
to become Tory Democrats. These two words were utterly 
antagonistic in themselves, and he could not understand 
how men could be fish and fowl at the same time. The only 
principle which was guiding the Tories was to get into office 
and remain there. No reasonable man could become a 
Conservative. As for the Whigs they were more dangerous 
than the Tories. There were about thirty of them in the 
House of Commons. They rarely spoke, but their influence 
— a backstair influence — was such that Ministers yielded to 
them, and it was to them that the action in Egypt was due, 
and they were the cause of the Crimes Bill in Ireland — both 
of which had been steadfastly opposed by the Radicals in 
Parliament. It was easier to deal with an open enemy than 
with a traitor in the camp. Happily the Whigs were expir- 
ing, and he did not think any one would care to adopt their 
creed. Coming to the Radical creed he said it was that 
England should become a democracy, by which was meant 
the rule of the people by the people and for the people. He 
was surprised statesmen could not see that the people would 
use the power given them for their own advantage. They 
would insist on a Government not mixed, as now, with an 
aristocratic element in it. They would deal with the entire 
Legislature, the Crown, the Lords, and the Commons; and, 
if they were of his mind, they would go in for a much more 
sweeping franchise. The vote was a right and not a privi- 
lege, and every man, not a criminal, ought to possess it, 
or he was defrauded of his right. He went in for residential 
manhood suffrage, for free education, for which he would 
apply the Church revenues and the misused charities. He 
was opposed to all indirect taxation, and advocated what 
had been described as equality of sacrifice in general and 
local taxation — that was, he would have a graduated income 
tax, and, in no case, tax the necessaries of life. In conclu- 



HENRY LABOUCHERE'S RADICALISM 249 

sion he said he hoped Mr. Chamberlain would succeed Mr. 
Gladstone as Prime Minister, and as for the Whigs they were 
welcome to go over to the Tories. He would not refuse to 
accept Lord Hartington, if he elected to fight under the 
Radical party, but he would refuse to sink his own personal 
opinions for any one."^ 

* Times, October 15, 1885. 



CHAPTER XI 
IN OPPOSITION 

(JUNE, 1885 — DECEMBER, 1 885) 

MR LAB OUCH ERE was not only a zealous friend and 
advocate of the Irish members in Pariiament, but a 
variety of circumstances conspired with his own aptitudes 
to constitute him an unofficial ambassador between conflict- 
ing parties in the House, and, in particular, between the 
Liberal Cabinet and the Nationalist leader. *'His real 
influence," wrote Sir Henry Lucy recently, "was exercised 
beyond the range of the Speaker's eye. Nothing pleased 
him more than being engaged in the lobby, the smoking- 
room, ^ or a remote corner of the corridors, working out some 
little plot. By conviction a thorough Radical, such was the 
catholicity of his nature that he was on terms of personal 
intimacy with leaders of every section of party, not except- 
ing those who sat on the Treasury Bench. He was one of 
the few men — perhaps the only man — whom Parnell treated 
with an approach to confidence. He watched the growth 
of the Fourth Party with something like paternal interest. 
Lord Randolph Churchill and he were inseparable. In these 
various episodes and connections he delighted to play the 
part of the friendly broker."^ In this way, far more effect- 
ively than by formal speech or resolution, though here too 

' The present Strangers' Dining-room. 
2 Sir Henry Lucy, Sixty Years in the Wilderness, vol. ii. 

250 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 251 

he was untiring in the fight, he was able to use what is called 
"the personal factor in poHtics." And in his case the per- 
sonal factor was no light weight. His extreme opinions, 
in which he had never wavered since the days when, as a 
young man, he had scornfully declined the succession to his 
uncle's peerage, secured him the confidence both of the Irish 
and of the left wing of the Liberals, while, by birth, education, 
and habit of life, he was the welcome intimate of men who 
sat on the other side of the House. Eton, Trinity, and the 
diplomatic service were an unusual training for an ultra- 
Radical and gave an attractive flavour of sacrilege to his 
views. No one appreciated this circumstance more than 
he did himself, and certainly no one could have put it out to 
better interest. 

On June 8, 1885, a coalition of Tories and Irish defeated 
the Government by a majority of twelve. The occasion 
was an amendment moved by Sir Michael Hicks Beach 
during the second reading of the Budget Bill, condemning 
the increase of beer and spirit duties proposed by the Chan- 
cellor of the Exchequer. The combination between the 
Opposition and the Irish was due to information having been 
given by one of the Opposition leaders to the Irish party to 
the effect that the Tories, if returned to power, would not 
renew the Coercion Act, which would automatically expire 
in the following August. ^ Mr. Gladstone resigned the next 
day, and, after some delay, Lord Salisbury accepted office 
and formed his first administration. The new Viceroy, Lord 
Carnarvon, following the precedents of Lord Mulgrave in 
1837 and Lord Clarendon in 1850, himself made the declara- 
tion of the Irish policy of the new Government. That policy 
was a complete renunciation of coercion. Ireland was to 
be governed by the ordinary law of the land. "My Lords, 
I do not believe that with honesty and single-mindedness of 
purpose on one hand, and with the willingness of the Irish 
people on the other, it is hopeless to look for some satisfac- 

^ Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. iii. 



252 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

tory solution of this terrible question. My Lords, these I 
believe to be the views and opinions of my colleagues." 
The "honesty and single-mindedness " of this piece of tactics 
were severely criticised by Mr. Chamberlain. "A strategic 
movement of that kind executed in opposition to the noto- 
rious convictions of the men who effected it, carried out for 
party purposes and party purposes alone, is the most flagrant 
instance of political dishonesty this country has ever known.'* 
The Irish party were much impressed by the advances 
of the Conservatives, and when Lord Carnarvon arranged to 
meet Pamell in conversation on Irish affairs, in the course 
of which they discussed whether "some plan of constituting 
a Parliament in Dublin, short of the repeal of the Union, 
might not be devised and prove acceptable to Ireland,"^ 
Parnell may be excused for having thought that salvation 
was to come from the Tories. Mr. Gladstone had not yet 
pronounced himself. The Liberal Government had impris- 
oned the Irish leader ; its record in Ireland, with the excep- 
tion of the Arrears Bill, was summed up in the word coercion. 
Liberal politicians were naturally upset at the new turn of 
events. Mr. Healy had written on May 25 to Mr. Labou- 
chere saying that "apart from coercion, it was the policy 
of the Irish party to equalise all Liberals and Tories as much 
as possible pour nous f aire valoir, so that the matter will have 
to be looked at by us apart from the renewal of coercion, 
though of course, I imagine, if we thought we could trust 
the Liberals to avoid obnoxious legislation and to stick to 
reform, we should support them strongly. But how can 
we have any guarantee of the kind?" Mr. Healy continues 
further on in the letter: "I think a little time in the cool of 
Opposition would do yotir party a world of good. ... If 
we supported your party next time, the Lords would throw 
out or render worthless any Bill the Commons passed, and 
time has proved that the Whigs won't face the Lords. If 
that institution were abolished we should be great fools not 

' Barry O'Brien, Life of Parnell. 



i88s] IN OPPOSITION 253 

to be friendlier with the Liberals, but they are almost power- 
less to help us, even if they were sincere, so long as the Lords 
are all-powerful." In a letter to Mr. Labouchere, dated 
July 18, Mr. Chamberlain made the following significant 
statement as to his feeling in the matter : 

The present attitude of the Irish leaders is not at all encourag- 
ing to Radicals. They take no account whatever of our diffi- 
culties or of the extent to which we have, in the past, supported 
Irish claims, and now that a Tory Government is in office they 
are ready to accept from them with joy and gratitude the merest 
crumbs of consolation, while they reject with scorn and contumely 
the offers of further legislation which we have made. I think, 
under these circumstances, we must stand aside for the present. 
The Irish Members "must stew in their juice" with the Tories 
until they find out their mistake. Whether the support of the 
Radicals will still be forthcoming is a question. My information 
from the country satisfies me that further concessions to Irish 
opinion are not at all popular even with our Radical constituents, 
and, under all the circumstances, I am not unwilling to keep 
silence for a time and await the course of events. 

The Pamellites, as I imderstand, cannot count upon two 
things : 

First, on holding the balance after the next General Election. 
I am convinced that they are mistaken, and we shall have a 
majority over them and the Tories combined. 

Secondly, they believe in the readiness of the Tories, under the 
stress of party exigency, to make concessions to them in the shape 
of Home Rule and otherwise, which even the Radicals are not 
prepared to agree to. In this, also, I am convinced they are 
mistaken. To whatever lengths Randolph Churchill may be 
willing to go, his party will not follow him so far, and, sooner 
or later, the Pamellites will find that they have been sold. 
I believe the experience will be a healthy one for them and 
for us. 

The situation appealed strongly to Mr. Labouchere, 
and he took up the part of the "friendly broker" with zest. 



254 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

On July 22, he saw Mr. Healy and wrote the following 
account of his interview to Mr. Chamberlain : 

Healy favoured me to his views during three hours to-day. 
I told him that we were sure to win without the Irish, but that 
if he and his friends wished for any sort of Home Rule, he must 
understand that his only chance was to ally himself with the 
Radicals and to support you. I said that I had tried to impress 
this upon Parnell, but that he talked rubbish about Grattan's 
Parliament, and seemed to me to be thoroughly impractical. 
Healy said that Parnell in his heart cared little for the Irish, par- 
ticularly since a mob ill-treated him in 1880. He regretted to 
be obliged to admit that personal feeling actuated his leader's 
policy at times, but Parnell felt his dignity offended by his arrest 
and his present feeling was revenge on Gladstone and Forster. 

I suggested a rebellion. But he said that this was impossible 
because the present policy of all Irishmen was hanging together, 
for they attributed all their troubles to divided councils. He said 
that Parnell is very astute. He generally finds out which way 
the feeling is amongst his followers before he suggests anything, 
but, in one or two cases, he has put his foot down, when he 
obtained his way. 

I asked him about Davitt. He laughed at the idea of his 
being of any use to the Liberals. He is a very difficult man, he 
said, and a trouble to Parnell, who would Hke him to go against 
us openly, for this would smash him; he cares neither for Tories 
nor Radicals. If Parnell joined the latter he would coquette 
with the former and vice versa. 

As regards the present situation he said that there never was 
anything which could be called a treaty with the Conservatives, 
but that there was an understanding that, if they helped the 
Tories to turn out the late Government, and generally supported 
them during the remainder of the Session, there was to be no 
coercion. "Churchill talks to us vaguely about Home Rule, 
but we do not pay much attention to this. We are now pajdng 
our debt that we have incurred." According to present arrange- 
ments, the Party is to put out a manifesto calling upon all Irish 
in England to vote solid for the Conservative candidates. This 
policy was adopted, he continued, in order to hold the balance. 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 255 

I went into figures to show him that we should win v/ithout the 
Irish, and said that the balance policy would only end in their 
tying themselves to a corpse. 

He admitted that this was possible, and said that personally 
his sympathies were with the Radicals, but that it was impossible 
to trust the Liberal party, and to hope that the Liberal party 
could do anything even if they wished to, owing to the House of 
Lords. "No alliance," I said, "is worth anything which is not 
based upon mutual interest. We shall win at the election, but 
we shall have to count with the Whigs. The English electors 
will be indignant at your conduct, and we shall naturally take 
our revenge on you for your supporting the Tories. Now, if you 
would join us, we should be strong enough to hold our own against 
Whigs and Tories. We want your votes in the House of Com- 
mons ; you will find that you will do nothing without ours. What 
do you say to Chamberlain's scheme of Home Rule in the Fort- 
nightly? He said: "... there are . . . some things that I 
object to in it, but Chamberlain could not carry it. Even if he 
got it through the House of Commons, the Lords would throw 
it out."' 

Well, we went on discussing. At last he said: "Can we have 
any assurance that Chamberlain's scheme would be one on which 
a Radical or Liberal Ministry would stand or fall? Will Glad- 
stone declare for it?" "What would you do if you could be 
certain of a big scheme forming part of the Liberal platform?" 
I asked. " Our party really is guided by about six men. What 
we decide," he said, "the others accept. I would propose that 
we do not compromise ourselves with the Tories, that we should 
issue no manifesto, leaving Irish electors to vote as they like. 
When the plan is put forth in the next Parliament, we should 
have to say that it does not go far enough, etc., but it might 
merely be a dummy opposition. Whether I could carry this I 
don't know, but I think that I could." . . . Finally he said that 
he would be back at the commencement of August, and that, if 
any arrangement could be made, he would do his best to further it. 

There are two points in your scheme that he wants modified, 
and these I will explain to you when I see you at the House, and 

I Mr. Healy wrote an attack on Mr. Chamberlain's article, as soon as it 
appeared, in United Ireland, under the title of "Queen's Bench Home Rule." 



256 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

you have a moment's spare time. He told me to tell you that 
those who wished that you should be ill received in Ireland would 
not have their way, and that you may count on a perfectly 
friendly reception. 

This letter is long, but I thought that you would like to know 
Healy's ideas, as he is by far the most honest and ablest of the 
Irishmen. ... It is all very well expecting to win the elections, 
but the Irish vote is an important factor, and if only we could 
square the eighty Irish in the House, and turn them into your 
supporters, Whigs and Tories would be dished. Certainly there 
is no love lost between the Allies. W. O'Brien, Healy told me, 
declines to speak to any of them, regarding them as intriguers 
with whom they are allied because of the Coercion Acts. 

Mr. Healy wrote again to Mr. Labouchere on August 
2, and his letter concluded with the following decisive 
words: "Of course, however, I should be bound by the 
majority, and would steadfastly carry out Pamell's policy, 
whatever it is declared by the Party to be." 

On August II, Pj9,rliament was prorogued and politi- 
cians soon began the campaign in the constituencies with a 
view to the General Election, which was to take place in No- 
vember. Lord Salisbury had made the first bid for the Irish 
vote in a speech at the Mansion House on July 29, in which 
he defended Carnarvon's policy as the logical outcome of the 
Franchise Act of 1884. On August 24, Parnell made a very 
important speech at Dublin, in which he said that the Irish 
platform would consist of one plank only — legislative inde- 
pendence. The English press was roused to vehement 
denunciation. The Times said that an Irish Parliament 
was ' ' impossible. ' ' The Standard besought Whigs and Tories 
" to present a firm uncompromising front to the rebel chief." 
The Daily Telegraph hoped that the House of Commons 
would not be seduced or terrified into surrender. The 
Manchester Guardian declared that Englishmen would 
"condemn or punish any party or any public man who 
attempted to walk in the path traced by Mr. Pamell." 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 257 

The Leeds Mercury did not think the question of an Irish 
Parliament worth discussing ; while the Daily News felt that 
Great Britain could only be saved from the tyranny of Mr. 
Pamell by a "strong administration composed of advanced 
Liberals."' The right wing of the Liberals, represented 
by Lord Hartington, and the left by Mr. Chamberlain, both 
protested. Hartington, speaking on August 2, referred 
to Parnell's manifesto as "so fatal and mischievous a 
proposal." Mr. Chamberlain, speaking at Warrington in 
the early days of September, said very definitely: "Speaking 
for myself, I say that if these and these alone are the terms 
on which Mr. Parnell's support is to be obtained, I will not 
enter into competition for it." The veteran leader, for the 
moment, was silent, having retired for repose and medita- 
tion to Norway. But though he said nothing himself, he 
stimulated others to speak. Mr. Barry O'Brien was ap- 
proached in August by a well-known English publicist, who 
begged him to write some articles on the Irish question of a 
"historical and dispassionate nature." The publicist made 
this request "at the suggestion of a great man — ^in fact a 
very great man." The very great man was Mr. Gladstone. 
The first article was published in November under the title 
of "Irish Wrongs and English Remedies." On September 
18 Mr. Gladstone issued the famous Hawarden Manifesto 
admitting the necessity for Home Rule. 

Mr. Labouchere was busy all the autumn trying to get 
at the various shades of opinion prevalent among the Irish 
members. Michael Davitt was often a thorn in Parnell's 
side, and the following letter he wrote to Mr. Labouchere 
on October 9 is very interesting as indicating clearly the 
way in which the two patriots often came into collision : 

There is a general impression among the rank and file of Irish 
Nationalists that the G. O. M. will come nearest to Parnell's 
demand. There is no English statesman more admired by the 

' Barry O'Brien, Life of Pamell. 



258 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

mass of the people, notwithstanding what United Ireland and 
platform speakers may say to the contrary. But the priests and 
bishops would rather have the Tory party attempt the solution 
of the Home Rule problem, owing to the fact of the Conservatives 
being in favour of Denominational Education. Men like Healy, 
strange to say, are also pro-Tory in this respect, as they fear that 
if Chamberlain and his party become dominant, the Radical or 
democratic element in the Irish Nationalist movement will be 
able to settle the Land question on more advanced lines than 
those of the Parliamentary party. In fact we have Tory Nation- 
alists and democratic Nationalists in our ranks, and the latter 
would like to see men like Chamberlain, Morley, and yourself in 
a position to arrange the Anglo-Irish difficulty. Parnell's atti- 
tude on Protection is absurd. If we had a National Assembly in 
Dublin to-morrow, he could not carry a measure in favour of 
Protection. Three-fourths of our people live by agriculture, 
and these want to export their surplus produce, and would, 
beyond doubt, be in favour of Free Trade. Since Parnell's 
Arklow speech I have more than once attacked Protection, and, 
in his recent Wicklow pronouncement, he considerably modified 
his views on the question. How singular that the volunteers 
in Grattan's time demanded Free Trade from England, and that 
England squelched our manufactures by — Protection ! 

I wish to Heaven Chamberlain had not made that Warring- 
ton "30 to 4" speech of his. He has played into the hands of 
the Tory Nationalists. 

Have you read my suggestions about a possible modus vivendi 
between England and Ireland in the concluding chapter of my 
book? Parnell took his One Chamber idea from it. There is 
no room for a Custom House in my simple plan, and the Irish 
people would jump at such a scheme of self-government, while 
every soldier now in Ireland might be removed without any 
danger to the integrity of the Empire, if such a plan of settlement 
were adopted. . . . 

No more vivid light can be thrown on Mr. Labouchere's 
political activities at this period than is derived from his 
letters. He was in commtmication with all parties. The 



i885l IN OPPOSITION 259 

following selection from his correspondence illustrates the 
delicacy and importance of the negotiations with which he 
was concerned. The most interesting of these letters are 
imdoubtedly those exchanged between himself and Mr. 
Chamberlain. In them we see clearly enough what was the 
main interest of Mr. Labouchere's life at this time. I have 
already pointed out how completely he subordinated all other 
political questions to his wide-reaching plans for the Radi- 
calisation first of the Liberal party and secondly of the 
country. Irish or Egyptian or South African politics were 
but pawns in his game. In this correspondence we see how 
that dominant interest came to be identified in his mind 
with Mr. Chamberlain himself. His frank admiration of 
and political devotion to Mr. Chamberlain may be read 
between the lines of all his letters. A note that may almost 
be called pathetic creeps into the later letters, when he has 
realised at last that his glorious schemes are going to be 
frustrated by the man on whom he had so completely relied 
for their success. The dramatic quality of some of the 
letters is intense. The angel wrestles with Jacob and knows 
it is in vain. 

Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere • 

Dublin, Oct. 15, 1885. 

My dear Labouchere, — A number of us had a long chat 
with Parnell on Saturday, and he seems quite confident that 
whether Liberals or Tories get in, Home Rule will be granted. 
I quite agree that, if the Tories get in with our votes and are 
kept in by our help, they will come to terms, but I am not at all 
so sure that if the Liberals get in they would have the courage 
(even if they had the will — did we oppose them) to face the 
question. 

It is no use discussing our attitude from any other than the 
expediency standpoint. We have to make the best fight we 
can for a small country, and clearly, if we could put the Tories 
in and hold them dependent on us, that is our game. With the 
House of Lords behind them and our help, they could play ducks 



26o HENRY LABOUCHERE [1883 

and drakes with the Union, were they so minded. I confess^ 
however, I am so ignorant of the English campaign that I don't 
find myself able to speculate on the outcome of the ballot box, 
but I can hardly believe that there is much prospect of the 
Liberals being beaten. What you have not touched upon in 
any letter to me is the point which always ghosts me — if the 
Liberals bring in a bold scheme how will they overcome the House 
of Lords? You must remember that the Tories would then raise 
the anti-Irish cry and the Lords would be in no unpopular posi- 
tion in rejecting a scheme which they would allege meant dis- 
memberment. Of course, if the Liberals then promised to 
dissolve, it is hard to believe that with our support they would 
not win, but it must be remembered that Liberals are not united 
in our favour, and though Mr. Gladstone could keep them to- 
gether, yet men like Hartington and Harcourt would secretly 
sympathise with the Tories, and would certainly not show en- 
thusiasm in rallying the constituencies on an Irish cry. I don't 
believe a bit in principle being of any account with English parties. 
Look at the way Chamberlain spoke of Ireland when he was 
baulked of coming over. Read — to take a minor creature — 
Osborne Morgan's speeches. Mr. Gladstone is the only one who 
has shown no bitterness and has kept the controversy in what 
the Germans call the heitern regionen wo die reinenformen wohnen. 
Of course I admit that we have given great cause for bitterness, 
but I maintain that we could not have fought successfully in any 
other style, whereas the English, with their bayonets to rely on, 
need not grudge us Billingsgate — though certainly we have not 
been allowed the exclusive use of this feeble weapon. 

I was glad to read Childers' speech, which produced an ex- 
cellent impression here by its moderation and practicalness. 
With regard to a plan, Parnell asked Sexton and myself to try 
and draw up something, but we were so busy — that without a 
good library, which we have not here, easily available, the task 
is appalling. Parnell's idea is to abolish the Lord Lieutenancy, 
strike a financial balance between the two countries, giving, as 
our Imperial quota, an average on ten years' returns of Irish 
contributions with the cost of ruling Ireland deducted. This 
would get rid of the Irish Parliament voting or refusing supplies, 
as the sum would be a fixed one, and if we did not pay it we could 



1885] m OPPOSITION 261 

very easily be compelled. He would be for retaining the Irisii 
members at Westminster, and I suppose there would not be 
much trouble in the arrangement being made in that case, that 
they should be summoned by the Speaker to debate affairs which 
he declared Imperial or Irish, and in the English Legislature 
taking them at a particular period of the Session for the sake of 
convenience. I think we should have full power over everything 
here except the Army and the Navy, as I cannot see what other 
interest England has here. If we pay her a due taxation, what 
possible care of hers is it how else we order our affairs? As for 
the minority, the Protestants would soon realise they were safe 
with the Catholics (and they would be the pets of our people). 
Let there be, by all means, every guarantee given for their pro- 
tection however. If the Tories come in they would give us 
Protection, I am sure, but would stipulate for terms for the 
landlords. — Faithfully yours, 

T. M. Healy. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Oct. 18, 1885. 

My dear Chamberlain, — Just before the end of the Session 
Herbert Gladstone came to me, and asked me to endeavour to 
arrange some sort of modus vivendi with the Irish. His father, 
he said, required time, if any joint action was to be taken in the 
next Parliament, to gain over the Whigs, and he was determined 
not to lead unless he had a united party behind him. I told 
Herbert Gladstone that I was convinced that Pamell, for various 
reasons, did not want an arrangement and that he would prefer 
to remain an irreconcilable, but that it might be possible to 
influence him through Healy and others. So I sent to Healy, 
who came over to England, Healy explained that personally 
he was strongly in favour of an arrangement, but that any one 
going against Parnell would be nowhere just now, because the 
Irish had got it into their heads that union was strength. But 
he promised to do all that he could. Then I went abroad. On 
my return Herbert wrote to ask what had been done. Healy 
replied that a Committee consisting of Sexton, T. P. O'Connor, 
etc., had been appointed to look into federations generally, and 



262 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

to report thereon, but that Parnell hardly spoke to his followers 
upon political matters, beyond such as concerned the Irish elec- 
tions, and he went into various details as to what he thought 
would prove satisfactory. This letter I sent to Hawarden, and 
got back a letter stating the views of the G. 0. M., the phrase 
being always "I" or "I think my father" as had been agreed. 
The G. O. M. says that he is disposed to grant the fullest Home 
Rule etc., but that he does not think it is desirable to formulate 
a scheme before the elections, and he again presses for the Irish 
minimum. I have sent this to Healy. Evidently the game of 
the G. 0. M. is to endeavour to unite the Party on Irish Legisla- 
tion, and to make that his cheval de hataille ; but he says that he 
will do nothing unless he can get some assurance that the Irish 
will in the main back him up. I don't think that they will, but, 
with such strange creatures, there is no knowing. 

I spent yesterday morning with our friend Randolph. He 
says that the Conservatives count upon 280 returns in their 
favour, and that if they get anything like this they will not resign, 
and they hope to remain in ofhce for two or three years, owing 
to the coalition between the Whigs, the Irish, and the Radicals. 
He says that Hartington, who up to now has been very guarded 
in his observations, now in private denounces you, and vows 
that he will not stand it. In his (Randolph's) opinion, he will 
withdraw from politics. If he does not, Randolph anticipates 
that the outcome will be an Aberdeen Ministry. Randolph 
looks very ill, though he says that he is pretty well. He is taking 
digitalis for his heart, and says that he is certain that the late 
hours in the House of Commons will knock him up. . . . 

What is the real feeling in the country I do not know, but I 
have in the last fortnight attended some of the meetings of the 
nonentities who are contesting the Metropolitan Constituencies, 
and here you are first and the rest nowhere. The Whigs seem 
to have disappeared entirely. My impression is that they have 
all gone over to the Conservatives, and that the Whig leaders 
are — if the country is to be judged by the metropolis — entirely 
without followers. When you allude to Goschen there are 
groans, when you allude to Hartington there is silence; and you 
have to get up a cheer for the G. O. M. by dwelling upon his 
noble heart and that sort of trash. I think, however, that 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 263 

the Conservatives will gain more seats in London than we 
anticipate. 

By the way, I do not think that the alliance of Randolph 
with the Irish is going on very smoothly. He complained to me 
that it was impossible to trust Parnell, and that the Maamtrasna 
business had been sprung as a surprise. Before the Conservatives 
came in, Parnell told me that he would support the Conservatives 
on no Coercion Bill, a scheme for buying out the landlords, and 
money expended in further works. No sooner were they in than 
he told me that the feeling in Ireland was so strong for Home 
Rule that it must be pushed forward. My own experience of 
Parnell is that he never makes a bargain without intending to 
get out of it, and that he has either a natural love of treachery, 
or considers that promises are not binding when made to a 
Saxon. . . . 

Would it not be possible to have one grand Bill for local 
government in both islands, and settling the difference between 
local and Imperial Sessions. It might be made so as to oblige 
English Conservatives to oppose it in their own interests, and 
sufficiently strong to make it difficult for the Irish to reject it 
on the second reading? — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

Highbury, Birmingham, Oct. 20, 1885. 

My dear Labouchere, — Thanks for your most interesting 
letter, which confirms my suspicions as to the intentions of our 
great chief. I was led to them in the first instance by the speeches 
of H. G. at Leeds — he is generally inspired, I think. Mr. G. 
himself was cautious with me at Hawarden, though he did not 
conceal that his present interest was in the Irish question, and 
he seemed to think that a policy for dealing with it might be 
found which would unite us all and which would necessarily 
throw into the background those minor points of difference about 
the schools and small holdings which threaten to drive the Whigs 
into the arms of the Tories or into retirement. But I agree with 
you that the modus vivendi cannot be found. First, because all 
Liberals are getting weary of making concessions to Parnell, 



264 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

and will not stand much more of it, and secondly, because Parnell 
cannot be depended on to keep any bargain. I believe, therefore, 
that Mr. G.'s plans will come to naught. 

I hope Randolph Churchill is all out in his calculations. I 
do not give the Tories more than 200. Of course the future 
depends on the result of the Elections, but my impression is that 
Hartington will yield, grumbling as usual, but still yielding. 

The effect of the campaign I have just completed has surprised 
me. I really had no idea at first of giving more than a "friendly 
lead" to candidates in the new constituencies. The idiotic 
opposition of the Whigs and the abuse of the Tories has turned 
my gentle hint into a great national policy — and now it must be 
forced on at all hazards. The majority of new County candidates 
are pledged to it — ditto Scotch members, ditto London. In 
Lancashire it is not so strong, as there are signs of rebellion in 
the constituencies against the half-hearted orders of the local 
Caucus. 

I fear we cannot run English and Irish Local Government in 
one Bill — the present conditions are so absolutely dissimilar — 
but we .will consider this again, if we have the opportunity. I 
am glad to say there is a good chance that Goschen will be 
defeated at Edinburgh. The working men are dead against him. 

On the whole I am satisfied with the outlook. The first 
difficulty is to find fellow- workers : the rank and file are all right, 
but there is an awful lack of Generals, and even of non-commis- 
sioned officers. — Yours very truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Oct. 20, 1885. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I send you enclosed to look at. * 
I have forwarded copy to Healy. Evidently the G.O.M. is 
getting a little anxious about the Election, and is now trying to 
persuade the Parnellites that they must try and get pledges 
from the Conservatives, because he knows that they cannot. 
As he says, the Land question is the difficulty, because he is not 
prepared to admit that its regulation in Ireland is involved in 

' The enclosure was letter from Mr. Herbert Gladstone dated October i8. 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 265 

Local Government, and that it in no way affects the integrity 
of the Empire, whether land in Kilkenny belongs to this man or 
that. I have pointed out to Healy that the difficulty might per- 
haps be turned by supporting your plan of compulsory purchase 
by local authorities in both islands, and I have explained to him 
the meaning of a fair price — viz. such an amount as would give 
the landlord the same net income in consols or Government bonds, 
as he gets now from his land, or ought to get, and I have urged 
upon him that if such a Bill were passed, and if there were Home 
Rule in Ireland, the Irish might surely make things so uncom- 
fortable to the landlords that they would be glad to clear out 
for very little. 

Would it not be a good plan to have one grand Bill, coupling 
together local self-government here, and Home Rule in Ireland? 
We should in that way get the Irish votes for England, and if the 
portions of the Bill really do give substantial Home Rule in 
Ireland, I greatly doubt whether the Irish would venture to vote 
against the second reading. They might develop their views 
and swagger in Committee. If this Bill were coupled with an- 
other on your lines respecting land, the two questions could be 
solved, or your purchase claims might form part of the Bill. At 
the bottom of the difficulty is the G. O. M. He still hankers first 
after the Whigs, and is not sound on the land question . . . , 
and is bent upon that difficult task of making oil and water 

combine. Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

Highbury, Birmingham, Oct. 23, 1885, 

My dear Labouchere, — My last letter has partly antici- 
pated yours of 21st. I return H. G.'s communication. He has 
apparently his father's capacity for mystification, for I cannot 
possibly make out what he is really driving at. 

Does he imagine that the Tories can be committed before- 
hand to support a small Liberal majority in some scheme of 
advanced Local Govt.? 

He must be an ingenuus puer. For my part I believe in leaving 
the Irishmen to "stew in their own juice." My proposal is the 



266 HENRY LAEOUCHERE [1885 

maximum that English Radicals will stand and a great deal more 
than the Whigs will accept. It had practically been agreed to 
by Parnell, and yet he threw it over at the last moment. It is 
impossible to depend on him and it is much better policy now 
to play the waiting game. If Randolph is right we shall be the 
better for not being pledged. 

I am sure, however, that he is wrong, but even then we shall 
be much stronger in negotiation when we have a majority at 
our backs. 

If the G. O. M. were ill-advised enough to propose a separate 
Parliament, he will find very little support from any section of 
the party. — Yours very truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Nov. 12, 1885. 
My dear Chamberlain, — This is the last communication 
from Healy, which he wants sent to the G. O. M. So I send it 
through the usual channel. After saying that he will do his best 
for Lefevre, he says: 

"It is very difficult for us to adopt a piecemeal policy, 
although it certainly is the intention to issue instructions 
that in regard to half a dozen Liberals, they shall be sup- 
ported at all hazards, but so far as I can gather the working 
of Parnell's mind up to the present, it is not certain that he 
will go against the Liberals bald-headed, if at all. T. P. 
O'Connor is strong for supporting the Tories. If we could 
have an understanding with the leaders, it would settle this 
and every other question. It seems to me curious that we 
are now to be asked to define our demands, on a question 
on which English Statesmen do not need much instruction, 
seeing that in 1881, when the agrarian question was cer- 
tainly complicated, nobody dreamed of asking our opinion, 
but on the contrary the beauty of the measure was that it 
was supposed to be disapproved by the Nationalists. I 
cannot, therefore, help feeling that this demand for a plan 
from us is simply a desire for our discomfort, and the profit 
of the English. If there is really earnestness in the Liberal 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 267 

Party next Session (should they be in a majority) to settle 
the Irish question, I do not think they will find us unreason- 
able. God knows it is time we were at peace, but if they 
insist on forcing on us a Bill, which we denounce, and which 
we shall wreck in the working, the contest between the two 
countries will grow more aggravated than ever. Spencer 
and Forster were hit a thousand times more than Trevelyan, 
and yet they never went pushing about, spitting gall as he 
has done. The G. O. M. is the father of them all, and I do 
urge him to develop a little the lines of his first speech which 
I have just read." 

And then he goes into a puff of the G. O. M.'s Article against 
Darwin, which, it seems, delights the Roman Catholics. 

Could you not give them a few smooth words in a speech, 
particularly in regard to land. They have taken it into their 
silly heads that you are now their enemy, and as they have 
eighty votes it is just as well to clear this illusion away. — Yours 
truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Nov. 16, 1885. 
My dear Chamberlain, — This is the proposal to the Irish, 
which I forward. ^ It is in reply to Healy's last communication. 
You will see that the question of the land etc., being under the 
control of the Irish Chamber, is shirked. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

Highbury, Birmingham, Nov. 22, 1885. 

My dear Labouchere, — You see, Parnell has gone against 

the Liberals. I felt certain he would. He has been playing 

with those around him and has intentionally deceived some of 

his own friends. I really think he will force us all. Radicals and 

' The proposal was contained in a letter from Mr. Herbert Gladstone to 
Mr. Labouchere, which Mr. Labouchere quoted in full for Mr. Chamberlain's 
information. It enumerated six conditions as the basis of a settlement of the 
Irish Government question. 



268 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

Liberals, to reject all arrangements with him. If we had a good 
Speaker with dictatorial powers he could stop Irish obstruction 
and P.'s power in Ireland would be shaken as soon as the people 
saw he was impotent in Parliament. 

We are having a much harder fight than we expected. I 
think we shall win all our seats here, but it is a hard pull. The 
Tories are very confident and are regaining courage in the 
counties. My hope is that the labourers will lie courageously — 
promise to the Tories and vote for us. . . . — Yours very truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Nov. 25, 1885. 

My dear Chamberlain, — That undaunted sportsman the 
G. O. M. is still hankering after the Irish and his general scheme 
of pacification. I get a letter from Rosebery every day, asking 
for this and that information. I have written to say that if the 
Liberals get a majority, it may be possible to negotiate, but that 
at present it is a mere waste of time to try anything. 

We have been losing for a very clear reason. You put for- 
ward a good Radical programme. This would have taken. 
But no sooner had you put it forward than Hartington and 
others denounced it. Then the G. 0. M. proposed that any 
question should be shunted to the dim and distant future, 
and that all should unite to bring him back to power, with 
a Coalition Ministry — in fact the old game which had already 
resulted in shilly shally. I think the inhabitants of towns 
have shown their wisdom in preferring even the Conserva- 
tives to this. I want to find the people on our side, who 
are against disestablishment. Some Peers and leaders are, but 
the masses go for it. They are simply sulky at being told that 
everything must knock under to Peers and Whigs. This is how 
I read the elections. Our only hope now is in the ' ' cow, ' ' and here 
too I am afraid that the Whigs will have thrown cold water on 
all enthusiasm. I am not myself particularly sorry at what is 
occurring. A year or two of opposition will be far better — from 
the Radical standpoint — than a Cabinet with a Whig majority 
in it. With all the elements of disintegration, we surely shall 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 269 

be able to render Conservative legislation impossible, and to 
force on a dissolution very soon, when your Caucus must come 
out with a clear and definite programme. Milk may be good for 
babes, but Whig milk will not do for electors. The Whigs have 
dished themselves, thank God. Even Gladstone's name goes 
for little at pubHc meetings. Yours is the only one which makes 
any one stand up and cheer. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Lahouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Dec. i, 1885. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I quite agree with you. But 
would it not be well to make it clear that the Election was run 
on the Whig and not on the Tory Programme? ' 

I should imagine that the Irish will come round. The aim 
of the Conservatives will be to keep in a short time with their aid, 
then to quarrel with them, and to seek to hold their own against 
the Irish and the Radicals by a combination with the Whigs. 
This scheme Randolph Churchill explained to me a short time ago. 
If G. O. M. still hankers after an alliance with the Irish, it 
may be possible to arrange one, which would cause a split between 
him and his Whig friends. He was always wanting to know as 
soon as possible what could be effected, because he said that he 
wanted time to gain over some of his late colleagues. 

I am not the least surprised at results. Putting aside the 
Irish vote and bad times, was it likely that there would be great 
enthusiasm for a cause, which was explained to be to relegate 
everything of importance to the dim distant future, and to unite 
in order to bring back to power the old lot, with all their doubts 
and hesitations, under a leader who was always implying, without 
meaning it, that he meant to retire? — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

SiON Mansions, Brighton, Dec. 3, 1885. 
My dear Chamberlain, — This afternoon I got a telegram 

I The election ran from Nov. 23 to Dec. 19. The result was that 333 
Liberals were returned, 251 Conservatives, and 86 Parnellites. 



270 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

from Randolph to say he was coming down, and I have had him 
here all the evening. 

He says (but don't have it from me) that, if a vote of want of 
confidence is not proposed, they will adjourn for three weeks 
after the Speaker is chosen. If they have a majority with the 
Irish, he says that they are inclined to throw their Speaker as a 
sop to the Irish, and evidently he has a scheme in his head to 
get Hicks-Beach elected Speaker, and to take his place himself. 

He told me that he had given in a memorandum to Lord 
Salisbury about the state of parties in the House of Commons, 
in which he puts down Hartington as worth 200 votes, and you 
for the balance. They intend to give a non possumus to all 
proposals for Home Rule, and they expect to be supported by 
Hartington, even if the G. O. M. goes for Home Rule. Salisbury 
is ready to resign the Premiership to Hartington if necessary, 
and the new Party is to be called the "Coalition Party." It 
appears that the G. O. M. (but this I have vowed not to tell) 
has given in to the Queen a scheme of Home Rule, with a sort of 
Irish President at the head, who is to be deposed by the Queen 
and Council, if necessary. 

Should they not be turned out, they will at once start a dis- 
cussion on Procedure. 

Is not the cow working wonders for us? Next time we must 
have an urban cow. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

Highbury, Birmingham, Dec. 4, 1885. 

My dear Labouchere, — . . . The "urban cow" is the 
great difficulty. I put my money on free schools, but, judg- 
ing by London, the electors do not care much about it. 

Things are going better for us. I was forced to speak yester- 
day at Leicester, and you will see I had a dig at the Whigs. I 
will drive the knife in on the 17th. 

Surely Hartington will not be such a fool as to make a coali- 
tion. If he is inclined that way I should be happy to give him a 
lift. It would be the making of the Radical party. 

If the Tories go against Peel they will irritate Hartington and 
the Moderates. I don't care a straw either way. 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 271 

I should warmly support any proposals for amendment of 
Procedure which gave more power to the majority. — Yours 
truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

P. S. — We must keep the Tories in for some time. If R. 
Churchill will not play the fool, I certainly should not be inclined 
to prefer a weak Liberal or Coalition Government to a weak 
Tory one. His best policy is to leave us to deal with the Whigs 
and not to compel us to unite the party against the Tories. — 
Yours, 

J.C. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

Highbury, Birmingham, Dec. 7, 1885. 
Dear Labouchere, — . . . The G. O. M. is very anxious to 
come in again. I am not, and I think we must sit on his Irish 
proposals. It will require a careful steering to keep the Radical 
boat head to the wind. — Yours very truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 
Foljambe is out, for which I am devoutly thankful. There 
goes another Moderate Liberal and Hartington's speech did not 
help him. I hope E. Cavendish will go too. He is not safe. 

Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere 

Dublin, Dec. 7, 1885. 
My dear L., — Thanks for your postings. As far as I can 
make out your party will be in a minority of 5 or 6 when all is 
over a couple of days hence. We shall have 86 in our party. 
I have not seen Parnell for over a fortnight and know nothing 
of his mind except that I think it significant he should have told 
his interviewer that he expected Home Rule from the Liberals. 
This, of course may have been a hint to prick up Salisbury, and 
it remains to be seen how it will work. But in my opinion we 
have no course but to turn out the Tories. Eighteen of their 
men are Irish, who would oppose tooth and nail every concession 
to us, and as they would vote against their own party on H. R. 
(supposing "Barkis is willing") that would count 36 against 



272 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

them, which, of course, would hardly be made up to them by- 
Liberal votes, as your party, with three or four exceptions, would 
stand coldly aside and rejoice to see them and us, combined, put in 
a minority. Looking at the matter in the most cynical manner, 
therefore, I don't see what P. can do but put out the Conser- 
vatives. With us you would have such an immense majority 
that you could spare the desertion of a score of rats amongst the 
Whigs, while many of the Borough Conservatives who owe their 
seats to us might abstain from a H. R. division. 

As to the means of putting them out, I assume, if we were 
agreed as to terms, that it would be easy to move an amendment 
to the Address which we could support. Whether this should 
have relation directly to Ireland is a matter for the strategists 
of your party to consider, as while it would suit our book 
perfectly it might not rally all your men and might lead to in- 
convenient debate. It would, however, look odd in us, after 
denouncing you so bitterly, to put you in straightway on some 
by-issue, not in relation to self-government, and, moreover, as we 
should be strictly "dark horses" as to which side we should 
support, an Irish amendment would have the advantage of 
extracting from ministers certain expressions or promises in order 
to fetch us, which could be made great capital out of afterwards 
by you. Without having thought deeply on the strategical 
aspect of the situation, it occurs to me that the best thing would 
be to have an understanding with the Liberals and "play" the 
Government for a few weeks with the Irish fly to see would it 
rise, without actually landing them. Both you and we would 
then get time to see their programme and how their party 
swallowed it — so as to corner them afterwards. 

It is clear no scheme of Home Rule can be carried through the 
Lords without a dissolution, and then, with our help, you could 
have a majority of 200 over the Tories. But we should have 
a good registration of Voters' Bill passed first and some amend- 
ments of the Ballot Act. I think your people should at once get 
into touch with Parnell. He went to England this morning and 
should be seen by some one from your side. I agree with you 
that Mr. Gladstone alone can settle the Irish question. He is 
the only man with head and heart for the task, and the only man 
who can reduce to decency the contemptible cads who so largely 



i885l IN OPPOSITION 273 

composed the 'ast Liberal party. I thank God that so many of 

the howlers and gloaters over our suflEerings have met their fate 

at the polls. — Yours, 

T. M. Healy. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

Brighton, Dec. 8, 1885. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I have just got a letter from Her- 
bert Gladstone, which I have sent on to Healy. ^ . . 

I have replied that it is very questionable whether any sort 
of arrangement can be come to with Parnell, but that, if so, it 
will be necessary for "Herbert" to explain precisely "logical 
issues and solid facts" — or, in other words, to let us have the 
maximum of concession. 

I doubt Parnell agreeing to any scheme which " Herbert " may 
propose, their views are so divergent. But suppose that he does 
— would it not be well to use the G. .0. M. to settle this question 
and get it out of the way. If he agrees with Parnell, he will not 
agree long with his Whig friends. So soon as the Irish question 
is over, something might be done to separate the Whigs entirely 
from the Radicals — or at least something to cause the G. 0. M. 
to begin those ten years of probation which he requires before 
meeting his Maker. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere 

Dublin, Dec. 10, 1885. 
My dear L., — Better try, would a letter to Parnell at 9 
Palace Chambers, Westminster, find him, and ask him to make 
an appointment with you. There is no necessity to refer him 
to the correspondence that has taken place, but tell what you feel 
in a position to say on behalf of your party leaders. He must 
see that Gladstone must come in if we are to get anything, and 
the only thing I see to be settled is the ritual to be observed in 

^ Mr. Labouchere quotes the greater part of a letter from Mr. Herbert 
Gladstone, dated Dec. 7, in which Mr. Herbert Gladstone urges the all im- 
portance of the Irish question, and the necessity of ascertaining the plans of 
the Irish leaders. 

18 



274 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

bowing the Government out. I presume he will move an amend- 
ment to the Address, unless he has some satisfactory pledge from 
Salisbury, which I don't believe, and I don't believe in the power 
of Salisbury or anybody else to throw dust in Parnell's eyes. 
" Hard cash " ^ or a Catholic University won't bait the Tory hook 
for us to swallow. I 'm for the whole hog or none. I think it 
would be important if we could have some understanding as to 
the procedure, we, in the opinion of your leaders, should adopt 
as to the terms of an amendment to the Address. They might 
prefer it should be one they could speak on and not support, or 
both support and speak on. The latter seems most convenient 
in case it is thought better to turn the Government out immedi- 
ately, so as to allow of the re-election of the new Ministers. My 
view, however, is (and it is not a strong one, because I have not 
heard the arguments contra) that it would be better to keep the 
Tories in a little for the reasons previously given, and also for 
the additional one that once they accept our help they will all 
be tarred with the Irish brush, and cannot afterwards complain 
of your party accepting an alliance by which they are not ashamed 
to profit. "Sour Grapes" would then be a complete answer to 
them in opposition. 

The stupidity of men like Harcourt calling us "Fenians" is 
inconceivable. Personally I should not object to the epithet, 
which I regard by no means an ignoble one, but I can well fore- 
cast the use Churchill would make of it in opposition with Sir 
William in power by grace of the "Fenian" vote. "The Gods 
themselves fight in vain against stupidity." 

If you exercise any control over the Daily News, it ought to 
keep your party straight by purging it of the rancour of defeat. 
Swear at us in private as much as you like, but avoid flinging 
bricks of the boomerang make. The Daily News calling the 
Anglo-Irish voters "clots of turbid intrigue" must have cost you 
a trifle at the polls. We can slang you de droit because we are 
powerless and irresponsible, but a governing body shall go "all 
delicately marching in most pellucid air . " Excuse the philosophy ! 
— Yours, 

T. M. Healy. 

»The term "hard cash" is quoted from the letter of Dec. 7, from Mr. 
Herbert Gladstone to Mr. Labouchere, already referred to (see note page 273). 



i885] m OPPOSITION 275 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

40 Prince's Gardens, S. W., Dec. 11, 1885. 

My dear Labouchere, — There is much in what you say, 
but the fear is that anything like a bargain with the Irish would 
be resented by the English and Scotch workmen and that a Tory- 
Whig Coalition appealing to their prejudices against a Radical- 
Parnellite alliance would carry all before them then. This is a 
real danger. I am convinced, from personal observation, that 
the workmen will not stand much more in the way of Irish con- 
ciliation or concessions to Parnell. 

I am clear that we had better bide our time and rub the 
Tories' noses well in the mess they have made. Till the i6th. — 
Yours, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Parnell to Mr. Labouchere 

Irish Parliamentary Offices, 
London, S. W., Dec. 17, 1885. 

Dear Labouchere, — I have only just opened your letters, 
as I have not been in London for some time. I will try and give 
you notice the next time I am in town, but my present impression 
is that it would be better to await events, and see what attitude 
the two English Parties may take towards each other at the 
commencement of the new Parliament. — Yours sincerely, 

Chas. S. Parnell. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Mansions, 
St. James's Park, Dec. 19, 1885. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I wrote to Hawarden in the sense 
we agreed on respecting your views — keeping, however, a good 
deal to the vague. 

Yesterday morning came a letter from Parnell. Had only 
just received my letter, was passing through London, wou!d say 
when he was coming back. Dilatory as usual. In the afternoon 
Healy arrived. He stayed six hours. 

The sum of all amounted to this : 



276 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

Parnell is half mad. We always act without him. He 
accepts this position; if he did not we should overlook him. 
Do not trouble yourself about him. Dillon, M'Carthy, 
O'Brien, Harrington, and I settle everything. When we 
agree, no one can disagree. We are all for an arrangement 
with the G. O. M. on terms. We are forming a "Cabinet." 
We shall choose it. We shall pass what we like in this 
Cabinet. We have never yet let out any secret. The 
Kilmainham revelations were let out by Forster and O'Shea. 
Terms. — G. O. M.'s plan. 

Details. — We agree to nomination for two Parliaments or five 
years; we like it, for we want to hold our own against Fenians. 
Protestant religious bodies may, if wished, elect representatives. 

On contracts, we would agree to an appeal to the Judicial 
Committee of the House of Lords. 

We would agree to any landlord having the right to sell his 
land to Irish State on valuation by present Commissioners, 
provided that all value of tenants' improvements were deducted. 
We do not go so far in land matters as Chamberlain — certainly 
not further. 

On veto. We could not accept the veto of the Imperial 
Parliament. This is the corner-stone of independence in the 
minds of Irishmen. Several plans were suggested — two-thirds 
majority, etc. I think something might be worked out by means 
of a sound Privy Council. 

We would assent to reasonable amendments by the Lords, 
but we should ask to be consulted. 

We have no objection to a Prince. This would be a great 
sop to the "Loyalists." 

Of course we must have the Police. We would reduce them 
to 3000 — there are too many. 

We claim to pay a quota — to raise this quota as we like ; there is 
no fear of Protection. Parnell and some Belfast manufacturers are 
the only Protectionists in Ireland. Perhaps, however, we might 
give bounties for a time. If we did, we should pay them, not you. 

If Bill thrown out in Lords, an Autumn Session; if thrown 
out again, to be brought in again in 1886, unless Mr. Gladstone 
prefers a dissolution. 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 277 

No Procedure resolutions until Home Rule settled. 

There are only three Judges to whom we object. One is old 
and deaf and wants to retire, another is dying (Lawson). 

If terms agreed to, never to come out that there were negotia- 
tions. We would regard ourselves as members of the Liberal 
party; occasionally indulge like you Radicals in a wild-cat vote, 
but vote with Liberals on all Parliamentary issues. 

I have sent this with a lot more details to Hawarden. 

Rosebery writes to tell me that the "revelations" are well 
received in Scotland, and that there will be no difficulty there. ' 

Do pray think how very advantageous it will be to get rid of 
these Irish. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, St. James's Park, 
Sunday, Dec. 21, 1885. 

My dear Chamberlain, — Healy came again to-day, and he 
tells me that the whole gang are now ready to accept the terms — 
provided that they are the terms. He stands absolutely against 
an Imperial Parliament veto and says that it is impossible. 

I proposed this: 

A Royal Prince — a sort of King Log. 

The reorganisation of the Irish Privy Council on a fair and 
reasonable basis. 

The veto to be the Governor acting by the advice of the 
Privy Council — i. e., of a majority. 

The Governor to be changed on petition of two-thirds of the 
Assembly. 

He thinks that this would do, and I have sent it to Hawarden. 

Healy has seen Parnell, and, without speaking to him about 
negotiations, he came to the conclusion that there will be no 
opposition there. 

The Conservatives, I hear, have it in consideration to submit 
the Queen's Speech immediately, and to put up one of their men 

^ Statement as to Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Scheme was published in 
the Leeds Mercury and the Standard on December 17, and in the Times and 
other London papers of December 18. 



278 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

to propose a vote of confidence, if there be no amendment on 
our side. 

I asked Healy what the Irish wjould do then? He said, "If 
nothing is settled, walk out probably." " Then? " I asked. "Go 
with the Conservatives and turn out the Liberals." 

But it seems to me that, without being sure of the support of 
the Irish, Mr. Gladstone could hardly take office. 

If so, what then? Hartington? 

Hartington is cuts with Churchill. He says that he has in- 
sulted him in his speeches, and that he will never speak to himagain. 

Churchill told me a few weeks ago that the Conservatives were 
determined to dissolve, if Home Rule were attempted, in order to 
protect the House of Lords. Would they have the courage to dis- 
solve at once? Are they not rather calculating on Mr. Gladstone 
not being able to form a Government, and either coming back 
with the Whigs, or dissolving on the ground of a deadlock? 

How the revelation came out was this: 

Herbert Gladstone told Reed of the Leeds paper his father's 
views. Reed told Mudford. Could this have been stupidity, 
or was it intentional by order of Papa? 

The Pall Mall of yesterday was directly inspired from Hawar- 
den. The channel was Norman. Certainly the ways of Mr. 
Gladstone are rather more mysterious than those of the Heathen 
Chinee. My reading of it is that he is simply insane to come in. 
. . . The Irish are suspicious of him, and intend to have things 
clear before they support him. Parnell says that he has a way of 
getting people to agree with him by the enunciation of generalities, 
but that when he has got what he wants, his general principles 
are not carried out as might have been anticipated. This is so 
true that I could not deny myself the pleasure of letting him know 
it. In this case, he will have to be a good deal more definite, if 
he is to count on the Irish. 

My own conviction is that if the Irish get Home Rule, they 
will — ^with the exception of the land question — surprise us by 
their conservatism. Their first thing will be to pass some sort 
of very drastic legislation against the Fenians. 

What the next step wUl be, I don't exactly know. The Irish 
too want to know. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 



i885l IN OPPOSITION 279 

Lord Randolph Churchill to Lord Salisbury 

India Office, Dec. 22, 1885. 

. . . Now I have a great deal to tell you Labouchere came 
to see me this morning. He asked me our intentions. I gave 
him the following information. I can rely upon him: 

(i) That there would be no motion for adjournment after 
the 12th, but that business would be immediately procceeded 
with after three or four days' swearing. On this he said that, 
if we liked to go out on a motion for adjournment, he thought the 
other side might accommodate us. I told him that such an 
ineffably silly idea had never entered our heads. Then he told 
me that he had been asked whether he could ascertain if a certain 
statement as to a Tory Home Rule measure which appeared 
recently in the Dublin Daily Express was Ashbourne's measure, 
and if the Tories meant to say "Aye" or "No" to Home Rule; 
to which I replied that it had never crossed the mind of any 
member of the Government to dream even of departing from an 
absolute unqualified "No," and that all statements as to Ash- 
bourne's plan were merely the folly of the Daily News. Then I 
was very much upset, for he proceeded to tell me that, on Sunday 
week last, Lord Carnarvon had met Justin M'Carthy, and had 
confided to him that he was in favour of Home Rule in some 
shape, but that his colleagues and his party were not ready, and 
asked whether Justin M'Carthy's party would agree to an enquiry, 
which he thought there was a chance of the Government agreeing 
to, and which would educate his colleagues and his party if 
granted and carried through. I was consternated, but replied 
that such a statement was an obvious lie; but, between ourselves, 
I fear it is not — perhaps not even an exaggeration or a misrepre- 
sentation. Justin M'Carthy is on the staff of the Daily News. 
Labouchere is one of the proprietors, and I cannot imagine any 
motive for his inventing such a statement. If it is true. Lord 
Carnarvon has played the devil. Then I told Labouchere that 
if the G. O. M. announced any Home Rule project, or indicated 
any such project and, by so doing, placed the Government in a 
minority, resignation was not the only course ; but that there was 
another alternative which might even be announced in debate, 
and the announcement of which might complete the squandering 



280 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

of the Liberal party, and that his friend at Hawarden had better 
not omit altogether that card from his calculations as to his 
opponents' hands. Lastly, I communicated to him that, even 
if the Government went out and Gladstone introduced a Home 
Rule Bill, I should not hesitate, if other circumstances were 
favourable, to agitate Ulster even to resistance beyond constitu- 
tional limits; that Lancashire would follow Ulster, and would 
lead England; and that he was at liberty to communicate this 
fact to the G. O. M.^ 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, 
Dec. 22, 1885. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I got a long letter from Hawarden 
this morning. The substance is, "Let the Irish get a positive 
assurance from the Conservatives that they will do nothing, and 
his tongue will be free." This I send to Healy. 

I have been spending the morning with Churchill. His 
plan is this. Queen's Speech at once — in address an expression 
of confidence. Liberals to draw G. O. M., Churchill to get up 
and say that obviously he intends to propose Home Rule. If so, 
adverse vote will be followed by dissolution. Will they dare to 
do this? Churchill says that they will, and that I might privately 
tell Mr. Gladstone this. 

He vowed that Brett had given Pamell a written statement 
from Mr. Gladstone. 

Healy told me to ask whether there were any direct negotia- 
tions with Pamell. 

Hawarden replies: "There are no negotiations going on 
between Parnell and my father, who has constantly from the 
first, declared, etc., etc." 

Who are we to believe? Mr. Gladstone, as we know, has a 
very magnificent conscience, but he will finish by being too clever 
by half, if he tries to play Healy off against Parnell, who, as I 
told you, is not much more than a figurehead, — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

' Winston Spencer Churchill, Lord Randolph Churchill, vol. ii. 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 281 

p 5.— Churchill says that they hear that Goschen has been 
playing a double game— that to win over Hartington he became 
a Balaam. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Dec. 23, 1885. 

My dear Chamberlain, — Has this occurred to you? The 
Whigs evidently will not stand Mr. Gladstone's proposals. If 
you therefore were to rally to them, you would clear the nest of 
these nuisances, and, as Mr. Gladstone cannot last very long, 
become the leader of the Opposition or of the Government — a 
consummation that we all want. 

I think that the Customs matter would not be a sine gua non. 

Imperial matters would be few. We are against wars. The 
main Imperial question would be for extra money — in case of 
wars. In the main the Irish would be with us — their views about 
land are much yours — I should fancy therefore that, provided we 
have a clear distinction between local and imperial affairs, we 
should soon be the very best of friends. 

That Mr. Gladstone will go on, I think pretty certain, be- 
cause — excellent and good man as he is — he sees that his only 
chance is to get the Irish. He is now engaged in a game of 
dodging. He has invented as usual a "principle" — that he can 
go into no details until he officially knows that the Government 
will do nothing. The object is to get the Irish on generalities. 
They, however, are quite up to this, and even supposing that they 
were to vote with us, they would at once turn him out, if he were 
to play pranks. I do not quite therefore see how he could come 
in without some sort of secret understanding with them. 

Now, what would satisfy them? 

On customs, as I have said, there would be no great diffictdty. 

Ditto on protection to minorities. 

Remains the veto. 

They are anxious to get over it, but cannot accept the Imperial 
Parliament. Would it be to our advantage that they should? 
We should be continually having rows in ParHament about their 
Acts. 

When I saw Healy on Simday I suggested this: 



282 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

A King Log in the person of a Member of the Royal Family. 

The veto to be exercised by King Log with the consent of his 
Privy Council. 

The Privy Council to be entirely reorganised, or the present 
lot to be swamped by men — not ultras, but of moderate character. 

Things would then work out by some of the Irish Ministers 
being made Privy Councillors. 

This he said the Irish would accept. 

Now, with such a plan, with nominated Members for five 
years, and with representation of Protestant Synods and such 
like bodies, would there be much fear? 

What the Irish are afraid of are the Fenians. This is why 
they snap at nominated Members, although they may perhaps 
openly protest. 

If I can get hold of Morley , I will have a talk with him ; he is, 
I think, of a secretive nature. 

Suppose that the worst occurs — an immediate dissolution — 
the rural cow would still do its work, for it might be put that the 
Tories are really dissolving not for Ireland but to prevent the 
cow being given. On other urban cows Mr. Gladstone would be 
very much in your hands, for to get into power, I really believe 
that he would not only give up Ireland, but Mrs. Gladstone and 
Herbert. 

Churchill is going to Ireland. It is an old promise, he says, 
to go for Christmas to Fitzgibbon, and nothing to do with politics. 
Did I tell you that when I said that I knew that Carnarvon had 
been intriguing with Archbishop Walsh, he said that Walsh was 
a very ambitious man, and would not long remain under Parnell, 
and that Carnarvon had tried to square the Education question 
with him? 

Let us even suppose that we are beaten at the elections. 
There would a a Tory- Whig Government. How long would it 
last? 

Hartington seems to be on bad terms all round. Churchill 
tells me that he (Hartington) declines to meet him or speak to 
him on the score of his speeches. Evidently he is confederating 
with Goschen, and probably Forster will become a third in the 
triumvirate? They do not strike me as precisely the men who 
will ever act with you, unless you knock under to them. 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 283 

It is by no means certain that we should be beaten at an 
election. Mr. Gladstone is still a power. Rosebery says that 
the Scotch are all right. The Irish vote has turned and will turn 
many elections. Our cards, therefore, if boldly and well played, 
are by no means such as would warrant the hands being thrown 
up. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

P. S. — Is Churchill reckoning with his party when he talks 
about an immediate dissolution? How will its Members like 
being sent back to their Constituents? Many are hard up. 

Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere 

Dublin, Dec. 23, 1885. 
My dear L., — Thanks for your views. If Churchill and his 
lot want to stay in, in order to thwart us and Mr. Gladstone, then 
I say, by all means, let them have a few months office, and let us 
give them — well — purgatory for a bit and see how they take 
it. It seems to me that opinion is not quite ripe enough yet 
amongst your party to swallow strong meat. I therefore think 
a while in the cold would teach them whether Mr. Gladstone was 
wiser than the tuppence ha-penny intelligence of his rank and 
file. What the God-fearing Radical evidently wants is a course 
of Tory slaughter abroad, and sixpence on the income tax, and 
we are just the boys to help them to it. Opinion here in loyalist 
circles seems to take it for granted that Gladstone needs a check 
from his own party, and I confess it has somewhat the aspect of 
it. So it seems to me we shall have to turn round and " educate ' ' 
the Liberal party, since they won't allow the greatest man they 
ever had to do so. A pretty mess they will be in, unless they 
seize this opportunity under his leadership of consolidating 
their party. I should like to know what would become of them 
without Gladstone? You would have Chamberlain and Hart- 
ington cutting each other's throats and the Tories standing 
laughing by, profiting by your divisions! And what should we 
be doing? You may be sure whatever was worst for the Liberal 
party. You may dissolve fifty times, but until you dissolve 
us out of existence, there we '11 be, a thorn — aye, a bayonet in 
your sides. Here we were with the chance of getting all Ireland 



284 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

round to some moderate scheme that would end for ever the feud 
between the two countries, and now it appears that some gentle- 
men who were born yesterday, and could n't tell the difference 
between a Moonlighter and an Orangeman, propose to spoil the 
whole thing — and in the interest of the "Empire" forsooth. I 
venture to think that the statesman who had the boldness to 
think out some proposition for the pacification of this island — 
small as it is — is the best friend the Empire has had for many a 
long day ! My heart is sick when I read the extracts telegraphed 
from the English papers to think these are the idiots we have to 
deal with and to argue with. It is almost a justification of 
O'Donovan Rossa. They have Moses and the Prophets, but 
they want a sign from Heaven. Of course, I know there are 
ten thousand difficult details to be settled, but these men don't 
want to settle anything. They have some party dodge to serve, 
and Ireland is their happy hunting ground. Let them take care 
that the quarrel is not a poisoned morsel for their dogs. Churchill 
babbles of coming over to rouse the Orangemen ! Je lui promets 
des emotions. He had better bring Gorst with him to rally the 
"re-actionary Ulster members." If these men think as well 
as talk this blague, England is very lucky in her rulers. 

But to quit apostrophe (which you must pardon) what are 
we to do? Can we expect Mr. Gladstone to bear the battle on 
his single shield? Is it not plain that if we plunge into Home 
Rule plans just now before your intelligent public apply their 
enlightened minds to it we shall get far less than what we should 
get by waiting and worrying you for a few years? We are all 
young, and though British saws won't bear me out, you are a 
very fickle and unstable people, while ours has the tenacity of 
700 years to carry us through. We can wait awhile and see who 
gets the worst of it, and if we are beaten in our time — well, there 
are plenty of young men and young women in Ireland to breed 
future difficulties for you. Some of us thought as Nationalists 
we were making a great sacrifice in being willing to give up our 
ideals, but the spirit in which we are met shows how much our 
surrender is appreciated by the individuals who subscribed for 
cartridges for the Hungarians, Italians, and Poles. The curse 
of being the sport of your two parties is in itself the best argument 
for the necessity of Home Rule. 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 285 

As for Churchill, a great deal of what he told you I take to 
be bluff — told for the purposes of intimidation. I don't believe 
they 'd dissolve, and if they are so inclined we ought not to give 
them the chance but help them over the stile, in order to trip 
them up at some better opportunity. When we beat them a few 
times, say on their estimates, and worry them on adjournments 
and motions, they will be in a much less heroic mood than they 
are now. Slow poison is a better medicine for them than the 
happy dispatch! By hanging on their skirts for a few weeks, 
snubbing them and humiliating them at every opportunity, they 
will be in a much more reasonable frame of mind than they are 
now, and meantime perhaps your young lions could be reduced 
to reason and your old ones have their claws trimmed. It is no 
good talking about the details of Home Rule, when the very 
mention of the word gives half the Liberal party the shivers. 
The men that won't take Mr. Gladstone for a leader to-day will 
have to take Mr. Parnell to-morrow, for assuredly things cannot 
rest as they are. Mr. Gladstone's enemies just now are England's 
and Ireland's worst enemies also. He alone can settle the ques- 
tion moderately and satisfactorily, yet he is assailed by his own 
party as if he were some reckless junior acting not from the 
ripeness of knowledge and sagacity, but through some adoles- 
cent's lust of untasted power! Your party ought to get up an 
altar to Mundella and put his long nose in the tabernacle. It is 
sweet to know that he has controlled the education of British 
youth. 

A happy Christmas to you, my dear Labouchere. 

T. M. Healy. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

Highbury, Moor Green, 
Birmingham, Dec. 23, 1885. 

My dear Labouchere, — Surely Randolph's policy will not 
work. A dissolution within a few weeks of the General Election 
would be very unpopular and indeed unjustifiable, unless the 
whole Liberal party followed Mr. Gladstone in a Home Rule 
proposal. But it is clear he will be left in the lurch, if he pro- 
poses it, by the majority of the party, and in these circumstances 



286 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

a dissolution would not help the Tories, and would probably 
unite the Liberals under Hartington — while Mr. Gladstone would 
retire. 

I should have thought the Tory game would have been to 
go out and to leave Mr. Gladstone to form a Government if he 
can. 

Unless he repudiates Home Rule this would be impossible, 
while if he does repudiate it he would have the Irish against him 
and could not get on for a month. 

I shall be in London on the 4th January, and could dine with 
you to meet Randolph on that evening — if convenient. 

I shall not be up again till the nth. Have they finally 
settled to go straight on with the address and without any 
adjournment?— Yours very truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Labouchere 

India Office, Dec. 24, 1885. 

Dear Labouchere, — I am engaged to be at Hatfield on the 
4th. That compared morally with your proposed "festin" will 
be as Heaven is to Hell, but my sinful spirit will sigh regretfully 
after Hell. I am making enquiries as to your letter which you 
suggested to me yesterday, but have not yet received a reply. 

I thought over Justin M'Carthy's story about Carnarvon, 
It must be a lie, for on Sunday last the latter was in London. 
He came over on the Friday previous for the Cabinets on the 
following Monday and Tuesday. — Yours ever, 

Randolph S. C. 

P. S. — The weak point of your accusation in this week's 
Truth of treachery on the part of the Government is that the 
announcement of Gladstone's having written a letter to the 
Queen first appeared in The Daily News!"- 

Now we are not likely to take Mr. Hill^ as our confidant. 

^ In Truth of December 24, Mr. Labouchere commented on his own asser- 
tion that a letter Mr. Gladstone had written to the Queen was communicated 
by her to Lord Salisbury, who, in his turn, communicated some of its coutents 
to the Standard. 

' Editor of the Daily News from 1868 till 1886. 



i885l IN OPPOSITION 287 

Mf. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Dec. 24, 1885. 
My dear Chamberlain, — Churchill writes : 

"I am engaged to be at Hatfield on the 4th. That, 
compared with the society of you and ' Joe, ' ought to be as 
Heaven is to Hell, but my sinful spirit sighs regretfully 
after Hell." 

They go on without adjournment, estimating that the swear- 
ing can be done in three or four days. 

Rosebery writes to say that he has heard nothing from Hawar- 
den since he wrote urging silence, a suggestion which he supposed 
was not appreciated. All I know, he says, is that Mr. Gladstone 
is devilish in earnest about the matter. 

Supposing that the Radicals went against Home Rule, the 
fight with the Irish would be long. Don't you think that the 
country would think that it would be better fought by the Con- 
servatives than by the Radicals? They would — with pleasure — 
make it last long. It would be like the French wars to Pitt. 

I saw Harcourt yesterday. He told me that he had been to 
see you, and seemed to me sitting on the fence. "What I am 
thinking of," he said, "is that if the Irish found that they could 
get nothing, they would resort again to dynamite." I told him 
that I thought that Ms life would not be worth a week's purchase. 
Was there ever such a timorous Sambo? 

Henry Oppenheim tells me that Hartington dined with him 
a few days ago, and that so far as he could make out he seemed 
inclined to stand by Mr. Gladstone. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

Highbury, Moor Green, 
Birmingham, Dec. 24, 1885. 

My dear Labouchere, — I do not think the Irish proposals 
are possible. If they refuse control of Imperial Parliament, 
there is really nothing left but separation. A hybrid arrange- 
ment with nominations. Privy Councils, etc., would not stand 



288 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

examination and would be a perpetual source of friction and 
further trouble, 

I do not believe in their Conservative legislation. They 
mean it, but the American Fenians would be too strong for them. 

There is much fascination in your suggestion of Radical policy, 
especially in the chance of dishing the Whigs whom I hate more 
than the Tories. 

But it won't do. English opinion is set strongly against 
Home Rule and the Radical party might be permanently {i. e. 
for our time) discredited by a concession on this point. 

We must "lie low" and watch — avoiding positive committal 
as far as possible. 

Did I tell you that the G. 0. M. thanked me for my last' 
speech? 

I doubt if he has made up his own mind yet or formulated 
any definite scheme. 

He has several times repeated the phrase "supremacy of 
Parliament." 

I am informed on good authority — the best in fact — ^that 
there is no truth in the statement that he has submitted a state- 
ment to the Queen. As Randolph is quite wrong about this, 
he must be taken as a doubtful authority in other matters also. 

I suppose that if he is going to Ireland he will not be back in 
time for dinner on the 4th. — Yours ever, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, St. James's Park, 
Christmas Day, 1885. 

My dear Chamberlain, — This is Churchill's statement 
about the Queen. When they came in they were told that there 
was a Home Rule scheme of Mr. Gladstone's and it was shown 
to Salisbury. I suspect that it is true, for no sooner was Mr. 
Gladstone out than Herbert began — on the ground that his 
father wanted exactly to know the Irish minimum, in order to 
have time to treat the matter with his friends. 

I place as the basis of Mr. Gladstone's action an almost insane 
desire to come into office. Now he knows that so far as he is 



i885] * IN OPPOSITION 289 

concerned, this can only be done by squaring the Irish. At 
76 a waiting poHcy may be a patriotic one, but it is one of per- 
sonal effacement. This is not precisely the line of our revered 
leader. 

Randolph says he is only going to Ireland, as he has done on 
previous years, to pass Christmas with Fitzgibbon. — Yours 
truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

P. S. — Healy and I have elaborated a letter containing the 
Irish minimum. 

Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Labouchere 

India Office, Dec. 25, 1885. 

Dear Labouchere, — My correspondent with whom you 
thought you might correspond with advantage does not wish 
now to be drawn. 

Very Private. G. O. M. has written what is described to me 
as a "marvellous letter" to Arthur Balfour, to the effect that he 
thinks "it will be a public calamity if this great question should 
fall into the line of party conflict," and saying that he desires the 
question should be settled by the present Government. He be 
damned! — Yours ever, 

Randolph S. C. 

Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere 

Dublin, Xmas, 1885. 

My dear L., — It may be that Brett is the go-between, and 
therefore that Gladstone could use the views of others to head 
off Parnell. Now as I believe we should speak with one voice 
and chime the same note, I don't think it would be well for me to 
say anjrthing at present beyond thanking you for all your kind- 
ness. I mean anything to any one but yourself. Harcourt's 
views quite interest me, and he is quite right, for if our people 
are disappointed after the visions held out to them, they cannot 
be held in. This country could easily be made ungovernable so 
far as the collection of rent or legal process is concerned, and the 
obstructors would find they were not dealing with playboys but 
19 



290 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

with resolute men. It is because I am for peace and feel the 
necessity for it that I am willing to accept any reasonable settle- 
ment, as things could not go on as they are for very long. If 
prices next year are as bad as this the country will not be habitable 
in any case for rackrenters. 

I can hardly believe the Tories would dissolve if your party 
shows itself united. It is on your divided counsels they reckon. 
If a big vote goes against them it will knock the bottom out of 
their mutterings. Besides supposing the dissolution goes against 
them, they must count the cost. Defeat would mean the instant 
carrying of any schemes Gladstone liked to put forward and no 
nonsense from the Lords. The Peers could not reject it, and if 
they did and Gladstone threatened to dissolve against their 
existence — hon soir! I am firmer therefore in my opinion that 
Randolph's talk was mere funkee-funkee, a train laid to explode 
in Hawarden, and I shall be surprised if it goes off. 

Your fellows will never realise the price they will be willing 
to pay us until they see the Market opened and a wretched 
minority sitting and smiling across the floor from the seats they 
themselves should recline on ! Their teeth won't begin to water 
till the 12th Jan. Therefore I believe a waiting game is our 
game, for surely it is of as much consequence to your men that 
they should govern England as it is to ours that they should 
govern Ireland? The fact that Parnell's reserve is so provoking 
to the English is his best justification in our minds. Chamber- 
lain's point about whether the Imperial Ministry which enjoyed 
the confidence of the English on Home affairs should resign if 
defeated by our help on foreign questions is a poser. It seems 
to me the federal idea cannot work unless you too have a local 
and an Imperial Parliament. — Yours, 

T. M. Healy. 

Mr. Labouchere to "The Times''^ 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, S. W., Dec. 26, 1885. 

"what the parnellites would accept." 

Sir, — During the last Parliament I voted frequently with the 
Irish members against the Government. I did so because I was 
' Times, Dec. 28, 1885. 



1885] ^ IN OPPOSITION 



291 



opposed to exceptional measures of coercion, and believed that the 
remedy for Irish wrongs consisted in allowing Ireland to manage 
her own affairs, subject to full guarantee being given for the main- 
tenance of the integrity of the Empire. In this view it would ap- 
pear that I was only in advance by a year or two of the opinions 
of many Liberals and Radicals and of some Conservatives. 

Owing to the course of action which I pursued, I was thrown 
into personal and friendly relations with many of the Irish and 
Parliamentary party, which relations I have maintained, and I 
think I am able to form a pretty accurate estimate of their views. 

First, however, I will say with your permission a word re- 
specting Irish opinion, and the position, so far as I can judge it, 
of the Irish political leaders. Among those of them opposed to 
the present state of things the majority are not separatists, some 
because they are in favour of the Union with the British Isles, 
others because they are aware that separation is practically 
impossible. Those who aspire to separation are an infinitesimal 
minority, and they subordinate their opinions to those of their 
colleagues. 

Throughout Ireland a passionate desire for Home Rule is 
entertained by all with the exception of the landlords, the 
officials, and the Orangemen. A good many of the landlords 
are disposed, however, to rally to it, while the area over which 
the Orangemen hold sway is growing smaller and smaller every 
year. Many of the Presbyterians of Ulster have already thrown 
in their lot with the Home Rulers. There is now but one single 
northern Irish county left which does not return a Parnellite — 
viz. Antrim. In four Ulster counties — Monaghan, Cavan, Done- 
gal, and Fermanaugh — no one but Parnellites have been chosen. 

The desire for Home Rule is irrespective of any wish to alter 
the land system, although this wish is an important factor in 
Irish feeling. Agriculture is almost the only industry in Ireland, 
and one reason why the landlords are disliked is that, with some 
few exceptions, they have set themselves in antagonism to the 
aspirations of the nation for Home Rule. The Land Act has 
disappointed and dissatisfied every one, for, while the landlords 
declare that their property has been confiscated, the farmers cry 
out that their property — i. e. their improvements, have been 
handed over to be rented for the landlords' benefit in the teeth 



292 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

of the Healy clause. It is hopeless to suppose that an Imperial 
Parliament, composed of a majority of gentlemen, who know very 
little about the real merits of the case, can settle this great ques- 
tion, at which it has been tinkering for generations, and I, as an 
Englishman, obfect to have my time taken up in discussing it 
any more, and trying to accommodate the differences between 
Irish renters and Irish rentees. Mr. Chamberlain has rightly 
objected to the Imperial Exchequer being saddled with purchase 
money to be paid to the landlords, and I think our duty to them 
would be performed if we were to insist, in any settlement of the 
Irish question, that they shall be entitled to call on the Irish 
treasury for a fair price for their estates whenever they want 
to sell them, due regard being had to the tenants' statutably 
recognised ownership of his improvements. Thus the landlords, 
if they object to live in an island, the inhabitants of which enjoy 
the advantage of self-government, would be able to leave it with 
the equivalent for their land in their pockets in hard cash. 
With their departure the police difficulty would disappear, and 
with it the necessity of England paying £1,500,000 per annum 
for the Royal Irish Constabulary, although the Irish insist that 
they only require a force of yi this size, and are willing to pay 
for it themselves. 

Speaking generally, and if the land system were satisfactorily 
settled, it may be said that the Irish are not Radicals in one sense 
of the word. Their habit of thought is Conservative. They are, 
like the French, somewhat too inclined to look and state inter- 
ference in everything. Their tendency is, as M. Guizot said of 
the French, to fall into a division between administrators and 
administered. Their hostility to law is not to law abstractedly, 
but to the law as presenting what they regard as an alien 
ascendency. I am inclined to think that, had they a Parlia- 
ment of their own, they would surprise us by their Conservative 
legislation. 

Apart from the Nationalists, who form the great bulk of the 
nation, are the Fenians. They are comparatively speaking few 
in number. Their strength consists in being able to tell the 
Irish that Home Rule never will be granted, and that Ireland 
must either separate from us, or be ruled by us in local as well 
as in Imperial affairs. 



i885] ' IN OPPOSITION 293 

That the NationaHsts have to a certain extent acted with the 
Fenians is true. But could they do otherwise? They had to 
fight against a common opponent. Between a Nationalist and 
a Fenian there is as much difference as between the most moder- 
ate Whig Squire who sat in last Parliament on the Liberal benches 
and me„ Yet we both voted frequently together against the 
Conservatives. The Nationalists are the Girondists, the Fenians 
are the Jacobins. Like the Girondists they make common cause 
against a common enemy. {He carries on this simile lengthily.) 
Mr. Parnell and his political friends have substituted constitu- 
tional agitation for lawless and revolutionary agitation. He has 
only succeeded in this by persuading his countrymen that his 
action will result in success. If he be doomed to failure, the 
Fenians will once more gain the upper hand in Ireland. 

The Times has more than once suggested that the Irish Par- 
liamentary party should state precisely what they want. They 
want a Parliament. How possibly can they be expected to say 
officially to what limitations and to what restrictions they would 
submit for the sake of a definite settlement before some responsi- 
ble English statesman, with a strong following at his back, is 
prepared to give them a Parliament? They would indeed be 
fools were they to make such a tactical blunder. In any negotia- 
tion of which I have ever read, bases are agreed on before either 
party — and certainly before the weaker party — specifies details. 

I think, however, I am not far wrong in saying the following 
scheme would be accepted : 

I . Representation in the Imperial Parliament upon Imperial 
matteres alone. This would require a hard and fast definition as 
to what is Imperial and what is local, together with, as in the 
United States, some legal tribunal of appeal. 

The Army, the Navy, the protection of the British Isles, and 
the commercial and political relations with foreign nations would 
be regarded as Imperial matters, and probably there would be 
no insuperable difficulty — if it were deemed expedient — in arrang- 
ing a Customs Union, such as that of the German ZoUverein 
before the German Empire came into existence, leaving it to the 
Irish to foster their industries, if they please, by means of boun- 
ties. There would be an Imperial budget, which would be sub- 
mitted each year to the Imperial Parliament with the Irish 



294 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

sitting in it. Each country would contribute its quota according 
to population and property. If more were required, the pro- 
portions would be maintained. Each island would raise its 
quota as it best pleased. 

2. The Government of Ireland — a Viceroy, a Privy Council, 
a Representative Assembly, Ministers. 

(i) The Viceroy — a member of the Royal family, with a 
salary of £25,000 per annum. 

(2) The Privy Council. — The present Privy Council consists 
of about fifty individuals, all of them anti-Nationalists, and some 
of them virulently so. The Council would have to be reorgan- 
ised. This might be done by nominating 100 new Councillors, 
men of moderate views, but who would frankly accept the ar- 
rangement and endeavour to give practical effect to it. The 
Council would gradually be increased by the admission of the 
Irish Ministers. 

(3) House of Representatives.— Its members would be elected 
as with us according to population. As a concession, however, 
it would be agreed that one-fourth of the members might be 
nominated, either during two Parliaments or for five years. 

(4) Ministers. — They would be selected from the Parliament- 
ary majority as with us. The Viceroy would call upon the 
leader of the majority to form a Cabinet. He would, however, 
retain the constitutional right of the Queen to dissolve. 

3. The Veto. — This would be reserved to the Viceroy, with 
the consent of his Privy Council. Of one thing I am absolutely 
certain. It is that no arrangement is possible which would give 
the veto to the Imperial Parliament. The Irish object to this, 
because they consider that it would convert their assembly into 
a mere debating Society. We — although we seem just now 
enamoured with it — should soon find that all legislation in Eng- 
land would soon be brought again to a standstill, as we should 
be perpetually debating Irish bills. The Irish would also object 
to the Queen exercising the veto by the advice of her Council, 
for, practically, this would mean the veto of those representing 
the majority in the EngUsh Parliament. The Privy Council is, 
unfortunately, historically odious in Ireland. But were it recast, 
it is probable that the Irish would not object to the Veto which 
I have suggested. 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 295 

4. Protection of Minorities. — They would already be pro- 
tected by the veto, by the nominated members and by the 
Orangemen, who would return a considerable contingent; but 
the Irish would go even further than this. 

(i) No contract existing or entered into could beset aside by 
Irish legislation. In the event of any one feeling himself ag- 
grieved in this matter, he might appeal to the Judicial Committee 
of the House of Lords. 

(2) Any Landlord would have the right to insist upon his 
land being bought by the Irish state on the estimate of its value, 
by the Land Judges, due consideration being taken of tenants' 
improvements. 

5. The Army in Ireland and the Fortresses would be under 
the orders of the Imperial Ministry, much as is the case in the 
United States of America. 

I am far from saying that the Irish, if left to draw up the 
settlement, would insert these conditions. Many of them savour 
of tutelage and distrust. But I am pretty certain that, although 
in discussion they might claim more, they would, if they could 
not get more, accept this scheme with an honest intention 
to make it workable. Less they would not accept, and for a 
very good reason. If their leaders are to be responsible for 
the peace, tranquillity, and prosperity of Ireland, they must have 
full powers to act, and the scheme of Government must in 
the main be acceptable to the majority of the governed. 

At present we have arrived at a ParUamentary deadlock. 
No measure dealing with Ireland can be passed in the existing 
House of Commons without the aid of the Irish contingent. If 
a Coalition Government were to succeed in passing, either in 
this ParHament or a subsequent ParHament, a half-hearted 
measure, the Irish would decline to accept it. They would 
simply refuse to act on it, and thus confusion would become worse 
confounded. Experience has proved that any proposal not to 
count on the Irish vote is outside the area of practical politics. 
Experience has also shown that the rival political parties will 
not subordinate their differences to any anti-Irish policy. Such 
schemes are like the kiss of peace of the French Assembly 
during the French Revolution. They sound all very well but 
last about half an hour. 



296 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

We have then to decide whether we will try the experi- 
ment of federalisation under the restrictions for the unity 
of the Empire, and the protection of the minority in Ireland 
such as I have roughly indicated; or whether we will embark 
in a career of what practically amounts to war between the two 
islands. 

Many Conservatives are excellent citizens, others are party 
men. The latter would probably not object to the latter alter- 
native. It would unquestionably have the effect of the French 
wars in the days of George III. They, I fully admit, would be 
better able to carry out a system of repression than the Radicals. 
They therefore would in the main hold office. Domestic reforms 
would be neglected, the Radical chariot would stand still. You, 
Sir, I apprehend, are not a Radical, and though you may not be 
influenced by this arrest of the chariot, you would not regret 
the propter hoc. But it ought to lead any Radical to pause and 
reflect. 

I did not show myself a fanatical worshipper of Mr. Glad- 
stone during the last Parliament, in fact I must have voted 
against him as often as I voted for him. In my address to my 
constituents I said that I should raise my voice against any 
Administration, no matter what it be called, that lags on the 
path of progress or that falls into error. My constituents 
have been good enough to leave it to me to decide what is 
lagging and what is error. If the Conservatives will at once 
bring in a Bill dealing with Ireland in the manner I have 
indicated they shall have my vote as far as that Bill is con- 
cerned. But I gather that they have determined to oppose a 
non possumus to all such demands and not to go beyond 
including Irish in any general scheme for local Government in 
both islands. 

I turn therefore to Mr. Gladstone. His public utterances 
lead me to believe that he is prepared to sacrifice his well-earned 
ease, and to endeavour to settle the question in a manner satis- 
factory to us and to the Irish. His experience is vast, his patriot- 
ism is undoubted, his tactical skill is unrivalled. I would suggest 
therefore that we should give him full powers to treat for us with 
the Irish, and that we should support him in any arrangement 
which meets with his sanction. The Irish have always had a 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 297 

sneaking affection for him; they will recognise that he has to 
count with English public opinion, and they will concede far 
more to him than to any other negotiator that we might select. 
I have seen that Lord Hartington and Mr. Forster have pro- 
nounced against Home Rule, and that the former is negotiating 
with Mr. Goschen. Lord Hartington generally pronounces 
against a measure as a preliminary to accepting it; I do not 
therefore ascribe much importance to his declaration. Mr. 
Forster, during the last Parliament, distinguished himself by 
uttering, in season and out of season, gibes and sarcasms against 
his former colleagues. Mr. Goschen, a man of great ability and 
honesty, could not find one English Liberal Constituency to 
return him, and sits in Parliament by the good favour of the 
Edinburgh Conservatives. With all respect therefore to the 
two gentlemen, I hardly think that the Liberals will accept a 
policy from them. If we are to judge by what happened in the 
last Parliament they have no followers. . . . Let Mr. Gladstone 
then boldly declare himself for a well considered measure of 
Home Rule. . . . 

H. Labouchere.^ 
To the Editor of the Times. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Dec. 26, 1885. 
My dear Chamberlain, — Hawarden writes : . . .' 

This is rather my plan — commerce would fall within the 
province of Imperial matters — religion, too, might ; taxation is a 
little more difficult, for it would require much definition. ^ 

^ An old Radical M. P. writes criticising this letter: "Mr. Labouchere has 
never been regarded by us as a Radical at all, but as a Separatist, and we have 
always profoundly distrusted his advice upon the few occasions on which it 
was possible to regard it as serious." — Times, Jan. 4, 1886. 

2 Mr, Labouchere here quotes a letter he had received from Mr. Herbert 
Gladstone, stating Mr. Gladstone's determination not to formulate any scheme 
which might be taken as a bribe for Irish support, nor to shift from his posi- 
tion, before the Government had spoken, or the Irish party had, in public, 
terminated their alliance and put the Tories in a minority of 250 to 330. 

3 Mr. Gladstone's idea of a veto was that it might be exercised by the 



298 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

Will the Irish trust Mr. Gladstone, and go with the Liberals 
on general assurances? They may, and they may not; they are 
very suspicious. Were I they, I should, and then upset him if 
he dodged later on. 

Anyhow, I think that we may take it that Mr. Gladstone is 
determined to have a try at Irish legislation if he gets the chance, 
and the fact that the Irish can at any time stop him in his career 
will lead him to go great lengths. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Labouchere 

2 CONNAUGHT PLACE, W., DeC. 26, I885. 

Dear Labouchere, — You have definitely captured the 
G. O. M. and I wish you joy of him. He has written another 
letter to A. Balfour, intimating, I understand, without overmuch 
qualification, that if Government do not take up Home Rule he 
will. 

It is no use your writing to Lord Salisbury. The Prime 
Minister cannot disclose the intentions of the Government except 
in the ordinary course when Parliament meets. 

I shall look forward to Monday's Times. — Yours ever, 

Randolph S. C. 

I think Joe had much better join us. He is the only man on 
your side who combines ability with common sense. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

Birmingham, Dec. 26, 1885. 

My dear Labouchere, — The G. O. M. is sulking in his tent. 
No one can get a word from him — he has not replied to letters 
from Hartington, Rosebery, and myself. 

Further consideration convinces me that no scheme on the 
lines of Rosebery's proposal is worth attention. 

There is only one way of giving bona fide Home Rule, which, is 
the adoption of the American Constitution : 

Crown on ordinary matters on the advice of an Irish Minister, but, on certain 
questions, e. g. religion or commerce, perhaps taxation, by the Imperial 
Ministry. 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 299 

1. Separate legislation for England, Scotland, Wales, and 
possibly Ulster. The three other Irish Provinces might combine. 

2. Imperial legislation at Westminster for foreign and Colo- 
nial affairs. Army, Navy, Post Office, and Customs. 

3. A Supreme Court to arbitrate on respective limits of 
authority. 

Of course the House of Lords would go. I do not suppose 
the five Legislations could stand a second Chamber apiece. 

Each would have its own Ministry responsible to itself. 

There is a scheme for you. It is the only one which is com- 
patible with any sort of Imperial unity, and once established it 
might work without friction. 

Radicals would have no particular reason to object to it, and 
if Mr. Gladstone is ready to propose it — well and good ! 

But I am sick of the vague generalities of John Morley and 
the Daily News, and I am not going to swallow Separation with 
my eyes shut. Let us know what you are doing. 

The best thing for us all is to keep the Tories in a little longer. 
Let them bear the first brunt of the situation created by the state 
of Ireland and the disappointment of the Nationalists. But 
how the devil is this to be managed? If the Irishmen choose 
they can turn the Government out at any moment. Can you 
not persuade them that it is clearly to their interest to keep them 
in for one session — while Mr. Gladstone is preparing public 
opinions? — Yours very truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Lahouchere 

Highbury, Birmingham, Dec. 27, 1885. 

My dear Labouchere, — I thought the scheme alleged to 
have been submitted to the Queen was one of recent date. 

If the rumour refers only to the time of the late Government, 
there is not much in it. Mr. Gladstone had no scheme then — 
only the vaguest ideas as to the necessity of doing something. 

It is pretty evident that whatever else he may do to "crown 
his career" he will break up the Liberal party. 

His proposal about veto is a transparent fraud. It could 
not last as an effective control for a single Parliament. I wish 



300 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

some one would start the idea of a Federal Constitution like the 
United States. I do not believe people are prepared for this 
solution yet, but it is the only possible form of Home Rule. It is 
that or nothing. 

In my opinion Mr. Gladstone cannot carry his or any other 
scheme just now, and if the Irishmen force the pace the only 
result will be a dissolution and the Tories in a working majority. 

Let them refuse to put the Tories out just yet unless Mr. 
Gladstone publicly declares himself. If they were to put the 
Tories out to-morrow, and then turn on the Liberals in a month, 
they would secure only a strong Coalition both in the House and 
the country for resistance to all Irish claims. 

I believe the true policy for every one except Mr. Gladstone 
is to "wait and see." — Yours very truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Dec. 28, 1885. 

My dear Chamberlain, — If I might venture to criticise — 
you assume that the Conservatives and the Irish would both 
act as you wish. Neither would. The Conservatives are sharp 
enough to decHne to retain power in order to be discredited 
warming-pans, and the Irish must demonstrate, now that they 
have carried the country. 

Writing to Hawarden, I have hinted at your views, and asked 
whether a below the gangway amendment would be accepted, 
stating generally that the Irish question must be dealt with. 
If the G. O. M. and if you were to vote for this, we should still 
be beaten. The party would not have pledged itself to it as a 
party; the Irish would be satisfied, and if on some issue in a 
month or two we had an election, we should get the Irish 
vote. 

I should say myself that it would be far better not to have the 
Irish at Westminster at all; this would meet the conundrum of 
an Imperial and an English Ministry. As a statistical fact, Ire- 
land does not now contribute much more than the cost of her 
civil Government to the Imperial Exchequer. Let her contribute 
nothing, or some fixed sum for armaments (which she probably 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 301 

would not pay). She would be like the Dominion. We should 
hold the country through the army and the fortresses, and 
if she tried to separate, we should suspend the Constitution. 
But as a matter of fact, she would not try. The Irish 'idea of 
patriotism is to serve the country at a good salary, and to 
get places for cousins, etc. You would see that Irish poHtics 
would become a perpetual vestry fight for the spoil. — Yours 

truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Dec. 30, 1885. 

My dear Chamberlain, — This is the last from Hawarden, 
which I transmit to Healy. The " channel " is in reply to a letter 
from Healy saying that if Mr. Gladstone prefers other channels, 
he (Healy) must take leave to withdraw. It is all very well, but 
Parnell will not be such a fool as to show his hand for the benefit 
of Mr. Gladstone. . . .^ 

Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere 

Dublin, Dec. 30, 1885. 

My dear L., — I have been in the country holidaying. The 
statistics you want I think could be got from Col. Nolan's return, 
which alas shows that you profit £3,000,000 per annum out of 
us. I speak from memory. Go to Smith in the House of Com- 
mons' Library, and ask him to find it out for you. He can get 
you this and any other statistical facts you need. But some 
thirty years ago your people dropped showing a separate Irish 
account and bulked the whole thing in order to diddle us, and 

' Mr. Labouchere here quotes in full a letter from Mr. Herbert Gladstone 
to himself, stating that, if communications have to take place with the Irish 
party, only one channel will be recognized, viz. Parnell. But he adds he does 
not think there is any chance of bringing their party to the scratch before 
Parliament meets, because of the insufficiency of the knowledge they possess 
to enable them to decide on any action, before the Address debate is actually 
in progress. He also points out how impossible it would be for Mr. Gladstone 
to adopt Mr. Chamberlain's policy of waiting, and adds that if the Liberal 
Party chooses to break up over an Irish Parliament it cannot be helped. 



302 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1885 

therefore it is net easy to reckon the figures out. O'Neill Daunt, 
however, can supply everything you can't get elsewhere. I think 
Randolph must have pulled the longbow rather taut to you in 
every way. I don't believe anything he has been saying. As 
to Chamberlain he must be crazy to write that way to Morley. 
Give the G. O. M. power and he could form a Cabinet in a week 
minus Joe, and the Gates of Birmingham should not prevail 
against it (it is " Hell " in the original). Your letter ought to do 
much good. You greatly improved it. It has been quoted into 
all the Irish papers and commented on. I am glad it appeared, 
but of course, I know nothing of the genesis. I agree with you 
about representation in the Imperial Parliament. Your people 
seem to shy at it, and it would be better for us not to have it, 
unless your side insists. Still there will be many Irishmen loath 
to surrender all representation, but they cannot have everything. 
I don't think Fottrell can physic Chamberlain's disease. He 's 
going to be a Mugwump. I wish him joy of the profession. His 
chance was to be first Lieutenant to the G. O. M. cum jure sue, 
and he is going to degenerate into a kind of small Forster species 
of Sorehead. I note what you say about our papers. Like 
Brer Rabbit we ought to "lay low" just now. Small wonder 
if Gladstone should be intimidated into minimising coercion. 
The Heathen rage very furiously against him. I mistrust 
Grosvenor's influence on Hawarden. If the old man was ten 
years younger, I 'd be for keeping in the Tories till we got County 
Boards out of them in order to chasten your party in the cold 
winds of opposition. Our people won't have any fraud of a Bill 
made for the Whigs to swallow. We shall be reasonable, but 
so must your party. We can wait, for we are used to it. Your 
party leaders represent personal ambition, and are in more of a 
huxry. — Faithfully yours, 

T. M. Healy. 

Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere 

Dublin, Dec. 31, 1885. 

My dear L., — I return H. Gladstone's letter which I regard 
as most important. I am very glad to think Gladstone is not 
being intimidated out of his position by the pitiless storm beating 



i885] IN OPPOSITION 303 

upon him. I agree that nothing satisfactory can be done until 
the House meets, and we shall then have a week before the Ad- 
dress is read, and our party will have met, and we shall know its 
mind, while personal communications will have become possible 
amongst the Liberal leaders also. I think Chamberlain is ruin- 
ing himself. If Gladstone sticks to his text he can easily form a 
Cabinet without him or the Mugwumps, and then where will they 
be? Trevelyan's speech to-day is very bad too, but they are all 
ciphers until Gladstone puts his one before their noughts. 

I have your letters safely and will return all your former 
enclosures to-night, I am not writing this from my house or 
I 'd send them with this. I have kept copies of nothing and 
burn your letters, as the police could always find a pretext here 
to walk in on you and read your billets-doux. — Faithfully yours, 

T. M. Healy. 



CHAPTER XII 
THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

lo Queen Anne's Gate, Jan. i, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — No, I do not think that he (Mr. 
Gladstone) is hedging; from his personal standpoint, he knows 
that his only chance of coming in is to get over the Irish, and then 
to get over his own party. Waiting games may suit others, but 
he cannot wait, and already considers that he has been out for 
very long. He thought so a week after Salisbury came in, and 
at once commenced with the Irish. 

This, I should imagine, is his game. On the Address, he will 
endeavour to put the Tories in a minority, with or without the 
Irish. He then expects to be called upon to form a Government. 
He will at once begin to enter privately into terms with the Irish. 
These terms will be much the same sort of thing as I wrote in the 
Times, or non-appearance at all in the Imperial Parliament, after 
the manner of Canada. If he cannot make terms, it may be that 
his desire for office will lead him to come in, but if he is to be 
believed, he will not. What will then be the position? He 
cannot well dissolve, so there must inevitably be a Palmerston- 
Hartington Government, whilst the Radicals would be split up, 
some going for the Irish, others against. This, it seems to me, 
means the destruction of the Radical Party for many a year. Mr. 
Gladstone knows that he is too big an individuality to be the 
head of a Coalition Government, moreover he has burnt his ships. 

Suppose, on the other hand, the Conservatives dissolve at 
once, after Mr. Gladstone has pronounced in favour of Home 

304 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 305 

Rule. On what cry should we go to the country, if not on Home 
Rule? Evidently those opposed to it would give the preference 
to the Conservatives, for they one and all would have put their 
foot down, whilst we should be tainted with the unholy thing, 
even if we had made a Jonah of Mr. Gladstone. So long as the 
Irish question is not settled, the Tories must have the pull in the 
country, and the Radicals must remain discredited and disunited. 

This being so, is it not worth while to take the other course? 
It is by no means certain that we should be beaten at an election. 
Mr. Gladstone is still a power. The Irish have votes which 
would turn several places. The electors rnay be divided into 
people who think about the question of Ireland, and those who 
don't. For the latter a "cow" might be invented, whilst many 
of the former would say that as one English party has gone for 
Home Rule, it must come, and if so as speedily as possible. 

The real enemies of the Radicals are the Whigs, and they are 
essentially your enemies. It is a mistake to undervalue them. 
They have always managed to jockey the Radicals. They hang 
together; they have, through Grosvenor, the machine; they 
dominate in Clubs and in the formation of Cabinets. They 
may ally themselves with you re Ireland, but this will be for their 
benefit, not yours. Nothing would give them greater pleasure 
than to betray you with a kiss, for you are their permanent bogey. 
Once you are out of the way, and the sheep of Panurge, i. e., the vast 
majority of the Liberal M. P.s, would be boxed up in their fold. 
At every election we should have shilly-shally talk, very vague and 
apparently meaning much, followed by half-hearted measures. 

All this is why I still hold that the Radical game is to go with 
Mr. Gladstone on Irish matters, and to use him in order to shunt 
them and, if possible, the Whigs — not that this course is not full 
of danger, but that it seems to me to present less danger than 
any other. — ^Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

Highbury, Moor Green, 

Birmingham, Jan. 3, 1886. 

My dear Labouchere, — The more I look at the thing, the 
less I like it. Whatever we do we shall be smashed for a cer- 



306 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

tainty. The question is whether it is better to be smashed with 
Mr. Gladstone and the Parnellites or without them. 

I beUeve the anti- Irish feeHng is very strong with our best 
friends — the respectable artisans and the non-Conformists. 

One thing I am clear about. If we are to give way it must 
be by getting rid of Ireland altogether, and by some such scheme 
as this. 

Call Ireland a protected state. England's responsibility to 
be confined exclusively to protecting the country against foreign 
aggression. 

England's authority to be confined exclusively to the measures 
necessary to secure that Ireland shall not be a point d'appui for 
a foreign country. 

The financial question to be settled by a fixed annual payment 
to cover: 

1. Ireland's share of the Debt. 

2. A sinking fund to extinguish it in fifty years. 

3. The cost of the military garrison. 

Query: Should we hold the customs till this Debt is extin- 
guished, or find some other security for payment? 

In order to gild the pill for the English sympathisers with 
Protestant and landowning minorities : 

Ireland to be endowed with a Constitution — the elements to 
be: 

1 . A Governor with power to dissolve Parliament — no veto. 

2. A Senate, probably elected but with some qualifications 
to secure a moderately Conservative Assembly. 

3. A House of Commons. 

To meet the prejudices of English manufacturers and work- 
men, a Commercial treaty pledging Ireland not to impose duties 
on English manufactures. (Bounties might be left open.) 

In this case Ireland could have no foreign relations. It is 
impossible to allow her to communicate direct any more than 
Australia and Canada. But this was a great source of complaint 
by Irish patriots in the time of Grattan's Parliament. 

The difficulties of any plan are almost insurmountable, 
but the worst of all plans would be one which kept the Irish- 
men at Westminster while they had their own ParHament in 
Dublin. 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 307 

I end as I began. We shall be smashed because the country 
is not prepared for Home Rule. — Yours very truly, 

' J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Jan. 4, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I think your scheme an excellent 
one; only Ireland is so wretchedly poor a country, that it will 
not pay its contribution; that, however, is a detail. 

I am perfectly certain that Mr. Gladstone is determined to 
go on, and that any idea of a Whig cum Radical demonstration 
to induce him to keep quiet will not avail. Rosebery writes, 
"He is boiling over with the subject," and you know how, when 
once an idea gets hold of his mind, it ferments; as Hawarden said 
in a recent letter, he is determined to stand or fall by it. 

I suspect that this scheme is passing through his ingenuous 
mind. To get in by the Irish vote, then to ask the Conservatives 
to consult with him as to a plan. The Irish, however, are quite 
cute enough not to help him in, until, one way or another, they 
are secured against this. 

I have just received this from Churchill : 

"The Queen's Speech will be delivered on the 21st. No 
mention of Home Rule. What a blessing it would be if we 
could get rid of the Whigs and the Irish at one coup. But 
I am afraid that this will be impossible, and that the former 
as usual will knock under." 
— Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to the '' Times ^' (Extract) 

Reform Club, Jan. 2, 1886. 

You, sir, possibly have not been brought closely in contact 
with the Irish leaders. I have; and more practical, sensible, I 
may indeed say, more moderate men, when not under the influ- 
ence of temporary excitement, I never came across. ... I have 
indeed been greatly struck with their largeness and broadness of 
view, which contrasts advantageously with our supercilious mode 
of treating political opponents who have not the advantage of 



3o8 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

being Anglo-Saxons, our insularity, and our want of facility to 
grasp new ideas, or to realise the necessity of adapting our- 
selves to circumstances, as Bunsen — one of our great admirers — 
said, what most struck him during his residence here was "the 
deficiency of the method of handling ideas in this blessed 

island." — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere.^ 

To the Editor of the Times. 

Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Labouchere 

India Office, Jan. 7, 1886. 

Dear Labouchere, — I should be delighted to dine with you 
on the 12th or 15th, if that would be convenient and agreeable 
to you. I think Joe is quite right to walk warily. After all, if 
the G. 0. M. goes a mucker it may be a good thing for everybody. 
He has always disturbed the equilibrium of parties and done no 
good to any one except himself. However, you will probably 
think me prejudiced. — Yours ever, 

Randolph S. Churchill. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Jan. 7, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — Churchill will come on the 15th 
if that suits you. Is there any other Conservative or Liberal 
you would like? 

I suspect that Mr. Gladstone will not give the necessary 
pledges to the Irish. They have an idea that he might get in 
by their votes, and then try to make terms with the Conserva- 
tives, and bring in a milk and water measure. He talks of faith 
in him. Singularly enough they have not that amount which 
they ought to have. 

There is also the possibility that they will take a bird in the 
hand from the Conservatives — in the form of some local county 
measure, which would strengthen them in Ireland, and which 
would give them leverage. 

If this be so, how about a resolution in their favour — some- 

' The Times, January 4, 1886. 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 309 

what vague — which would win them over to us in case of an 
election, and which would not be carried? — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. T. M. Healy to Mr. Labouchere 

Dublin, Jan. 7, 1886. 

My dear L., — I am afraid I badly repay all your letters. I 
greatly fear that Chamberlain's tone shows that even if he accepts 
the proposals in principle, he will help the Whigs to make Mr. 
Gladstone minimise them, and thus they may prove inaccept- 
able to Ireland. Then it will be the Land Act misery over again, 
or rather your party would not be let in by us to pass a maimed 
measure, and so the Tories would reap the profit of our dissen- 
sions, Beati possidentes! However, I think when your men get 
blooded by a few skirmishes with the Tories, they will be willing 
enough to patch things up to turn them out. With regard to 
Morley's point about the Veto, I recognise that the bigger powers 
we get the more natural would be your desire for some guarantee 
against their abuse — the better the Parliament, the more effec- 
tive the Veto, As the scientist would say, you want it in- 
creased according to the square of the power. A Governor- 
General, I think, would meet this, and, for my part, I think 
it would capture or render quiescent a lot of the loyalists 
if he were a prince. A few Royal levees and some judi- 
cious jobs would probably bring most of these gentry round in 
a short time. 

Your letters have been admirable, and I am sure have 
done good, though none of us could write to the Times or 
acknowledge it in any way. Moreover, except through ex- 
tracts in the Express, none of us see it here. A single copy 
of any newspaper from across the Channel does not enter the 
office of United Ireland! However, as we are not your rulers 
this is no crime. 

The usual stu£E I see is being talked about Home Rule leading 
to separation, and how the American-Irish would not accept the 
settlement, nor the Fenians. The fellow who writes as "an old 
Fenian " in the St. James' Gazette, extracts from which I have seen, 
is Dick Piggott, late of the Irishman newspaper, who swindled 



310 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

every Fenian Fund he could milk, and whom the boys would 
not touch with the tongs. I undertake to say that if a suitable 
Home Rule scheme be proposed, though Parnell said he could 
offer no guarantees, that we could call a National Convention 
to ratify it, and therefore could treat as a traitor every one who 
afterwards opposed it, or did not loyally abide thereby. More- 
over, terrible as are the American- Irish in English eyes, I believe 
— and I have visited and spoken at every big city from New 
York to San Francisco, and from Galveston on the Mexican 
Gulf to Montreal in Canada — that we could summon a repre- 
sentative Convention in Chicago, including the Clan na Gael, 
the ancient Order, and the Rossa crowd which would endorse the 
settlement and thereby effectually dry up the well-springs of 
revolutionary agitation. But to do this we must get no sham 
vestry, but an assembly that would gratify the national pride of 
the Celtic race. Our people in America will only be too glad to 
be allowed to mind their own business, and many of the wealthy 
among them will come back and settle down here, investing 
their capital and teaching the people the industries they have 
learnt abroad. The mass of them are as Conservative as any 
in the world, and when I told a crowded meeting the night of the 
Chicago Convention in 1881 — referring to wild advice that had 
been offered — "that the Irish leaders were no more to be bought 
by American dollars than by English gold/' the sentiment was 
cheered to the echo and was mutilated accordingly in the report 
of the Irish World. 

However, this is running a long way ahead of events, and this 
idea of mine is not one that I have yet broached to my colleagues. 

I expect to be over on Tuesday, but hope to be allowed to run 
back then till the 21st, as I suppose we shall have nothing to do 
in the interval. I don't suppose we shall make up our minds 
as to whether we shall move an amendment to the Address, till 
after we hear it read. Even then this, I presume, would depend 
as to whether a modus vivendi with you was arrived at, for if 
the Tories are in earnest with their threat to dissolve, the best 
tactics would be to have no Irish Debate and to cook their 
goose on a side issue — Egypt, Burmah, or what-not. — Truly 
yours, 

T. M. Healy. 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 311 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

Highbury, Moor Green, 
Birmingham, Jan. 8, 1886. 

My dear LABOUCHERE,~The 15th will suit me. Many 
thanks. I fancy Randolph Churchill will be more talkative if 
we are alone, unless you know any one whom he likes to meet. 
I leave it entirely in your hands. 

Mr. Gladstone has asked me to meet him on Tuesday. Per- 
haps he may be explicit, but I am not sanguine. 

If the Irish are ready to give the Tories a chance, by all means 
let us wait and see results. 

I could not support any resolution at present. If it were 
vague, the Irish would not thank us — if it were definite, I doubt 
if it would be good policy to vote with it. 

We are sure to have an opportunity on the Local Govern- 
ment Bill — if we desire to take advantage of it. — Yours very 
truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 
Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Jan. 9, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I had a letter from Healy yester- 
day. So far as I understand the matter, things are in this 
position. 

Mr. Gladstone is in his tent. He will do nothing until the 
Address. He then, I think, inclines to an understanding with 
the Irish, for this is a sine qua non of his coming in. 

Healy says that the Irish will decide nothing until the Ad- 
dress. They will not aid in turning out the Tories unless there 
is a specific understanding as to what Mr. Gladstone's Bill is to 
be. If such arrangement be satisfactory, they will agree to vote 
them out on Burmah, Egypt, or anything else, so as to render it 
difficult for the Tories to dissolve. They perceive the difficulties 
of Mr. Gladstone's position and are just now in a yielding mood, 
but beyond a certain point they cannot go, as their own people 
would turn against them. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 



312 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Jan. 12, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I have just got a long letter from 
Herbert Gladstone, So far as I can make out, Mr. Gladstone 
has in reality abandoned none of his projects. But he is cornered 
by the fact that the Irish will not aid him to get in without very 
definite assurances. 

Healy writes to say that he will be here on Thursday, and 
that nothing has been decided as to the course of the Irish. He 
suggests — if some agreement can be come to — saying not one 
word on Home Rule, but turning the Government out upon a 
bye issue, Egypt, Burmah, or anything. I have written to ask 
whether the following plan would be assented to : 

(i) Turn out Government on bye issue. (2) Have some sort 
of temporary scheme for governing Ireland. (3) Appoint some 
sort of dilatory Commission. (4) Bring in Bill next year. I have 
explained that this would only be possible if Mr. Gladstone could, 
in some way or other, make it clear to the Irish what the Bill is 
to be, and also that he would stand or fall on it. 

This would give time to educate public opinion, and to 
have good Bills on English subjects, whilst it would render it 
impossible for the Conservatives to dissolve. 

I don't know whether I could get the Irish to assent — sup- 
posing that Mr. Gladstone does — but I should be sanguine of 
doing so. They have now so arranged their party that practi- 
cally Healy, O'Brien, Harrington, and Parnell can do precisely 
what they like. Parnell I put last, because he will agree to the 
decisions of the other three. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

P. S. — I write this, because I shall not be able to explain it 
to you this evening before Randolph Churchill. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Jan. 15, 1886. 
My dear Chamberlain, — I should have been delighted to 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 313 

dine with you on the 31st, but I have already asked some people 
to dine with me on that day. 

Harcourt favoured me during an hour yesterday with his 
views. They are vague and misty. He has got it into his head 
that the Government mean a Coercion Bill. If they are wise, 
I should think that they would bring one in, and thus split up 
the Liberals at once. 

Mr. Gladstone is evidently meditating some coup on his own 
account, and to retire in a blaze of Irish fire- works. He does not 
want to wait, but if he acts, he holds that he- must act at once. 
He is by no means in a good humour with his late colleagues. — 
Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Healy to Mr. Labouchere 

Dublin, Jan. 15, 1886. 

My dear Mr. L., — Herbert Gladstone is totally wrong 
about me. I neijther saw nor heard from nor communicated with 
Churchill or any member of the Government since the House 
rose — I except the Irish law officers whom I meet daily in Court, 
but whom I never exchange a word with on politics. I am now 
just of the same opinion I always held, but I don't see what we 
can do till your party move. It would play the devil with us 
were we to put the Liberals into office and then have them to turn 
round on us, by proposing a settlement we could not accept. 
We cannot buy a pig in a poke. You may say we could turn 
them out at a minute's notice. That seems very easy on paper 
by counting parties, but if we are going to play this game suc- 
cessfully the fewer ministries we turn out the better, as any 
naked exhibition of our power in a gratuitous way would be 
sure to get you a majority if you dissolved on that issue. No, 
we prefer instead of having to put you out, not to let you get 
in, until there 's a straightforward arrangement made. At least 
this is what seems to me to be commonsense. I know nothing of 
the Tory plans. Of course, if they are fools enough to play your 
hand by proposing coercion our hands may be forced — I only 
write on the assumption that they have sense. What I say is 
let Mr. Gladstone satisfy Parnell and the whole thing is settled. 



314 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

Was it from Grosvenor's experience and anecdotes of the Irish 
party that the Duke of Westminster called us debauchees? Were 
we too lax in our attendance on Parliament to please Lord Richard 
— prowling round St. John's Wood, when we ought to have been 
braking his coach? So we must please our fastidious censors by- 
arranging that the new party will sit up of nights in the House, 
instead of sporting about town as His Grace suggests the old 
one did. Shall be over on Thursday. 

T. M. Healy. 

Mr. Healy to Mr. Labouchere 

Dublin, Jan. 17, 1886. 

My dear L., — I don't think I could say anything fresh until 
Thursday, when I shall go fully into matters with you. I quite 
feel the difficulties of Mr. Gladstone's position and think our 
party fully appreciate them, and would even strain points to 
obviate them, if this can well be done by men in our straits. 
However, I would point out that on his side we have had nothing 
but a repudiation of the principles attributed to him by the 
"Revelations," and this, plus good intentions, is not sufficient 
ground for eighty-six men to consult and decide on. If no 
communication is made to Parnell, as I think it ought to be, for 
our meeting, we shall probably let things drift and do nothing. 
I would have preferred all along not to have been the repository 
of any views held by your Leaders, lest it might be supposed I 
was trenching on the prerogatives of Parnell's position, and now 
I think the time has come — if he is to be approached at all for 
some communication to reach him otherwise than through me. 
If I can be shown any honourable basis, on which we could vote 
your party into power, I shall rejoice and will press my views 
strongly on our men. — Faithfully yours, 

T. M. Healy. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Jan. 22, 1886. 
My dear Chamberlain, — I send this to you by hand, be- 



18861 THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 315 

cause if you are inclined to go on with the plan you suggested, 
it will be necessary to act. 

Parnell is quite ready — without prejudice — that is to say, 
he says that he does not absolutely assent, but thinks that he will, 
which you know, with him — who is more hesitating than Fabius 
— means that he will. His lieutenants agree — although he does 
not know this. 

But he says that, admitting that Mr. Gladstone can give no 
pledges, he must know two things : 

1. That Mr. Gladstone, if called upon by the Queen to form 
a Government, will form one, i. e., if Goschen, Hartington, etc., 
decline to join, that he will not throw up the sponge, for, with 
considerable point, he says that he prefers the Conservatives to 
a Hartington Government, supported by the Moderate Liberals 
and Conservatives, and you as a Radical. Such a Government 
he might not be able to turn out, and it might remain master 
of the situation. 

2. He wants an understanding that if Mr. Gladstone comes 
in he will act on his speech, and at once bring in his scheme for 
the Government of Ireland. 

I saw Herbert Gladstone, and he is to explain these two 
demands to his father. 

Herbert Gladstone says that his father would take office 
without Hartington, but that his main difficulty is the Peers. 
He hopes that he will be able to get over this difficulty very soon. 

I have replied that at any moment the Irish may break out, 
and that if once we get to Procedure we shall all fall to pieces, 
and that the determination of the Irish to fight against Procedure 
will very soon make us too. 

I begged J. CoUings to put off his amendment, and told him 
that perhaps I might get him some votes. Randolph Churchill 
tried to bring the general debate to an end last night, but this 
we stopped, and Sexton moved the adjournment. 

Grosvenor asked me how long the debate would last? I said 
the Irish meant to keep it up. He said that he did not want 
them to. I said that they were not asking him whether he did 
or not, but that he was asking me now long it would last. He 
told me that he would prevent the G. O. M. ever going for Home 
Rule, and then spoke about the Party. He said, "You or Truth 



3i6 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

are making a great mistake. You assume that the Radicals 
constitute the majority of the Liberal Party, but really the 
Whigs do." I asked him what would happen if the G. O. M. 
were to retire; he replied, a Whig Administration under Harting- 
ton with you — that you and the Radicals would soon perceive 
that you were not masters of the situation, etc. 

I, of course, did not tell him about Collings's amendment, 
but it will be very difficult to get him to whip for it, and you will 
have to put your foot down about it. Parnell agrees, if they are 
to be bought off, that the Irish shall appear not to take much 
interest in the matter, but to vote up before the Whigs know what 
is to occur. 

Parnell is more than reasonable. In his present mood, he is 
all for a fair scheme. His two sine qua nons are, that there should 
be an Assembly called a Parliament for local matters, and that 
he should have the Police. He says that it would be absolutely 
impossible for him to keep down the Fenians without this, and 
that he is fully determined not to accept the responsibiHty. 
About the veto, etc., he will make concessions, and give any 
guarantees that are required. 

He made a most conciliatory speech last night. Before mak- 
ing it he said, "There shall not be one word in it to which any 
one can object." He is very anxious to know about your feeling 
on the matter of Mr. Gladstone's plans. 

With regard to Ireland, he says that the people really cannot 
pay their rents in some places, and that he is certain that if 
nothing be done there will be rows in a few weeks. But he is 
doing all that he can to keep things quiet, and next week he will 
dissolve some of the most bumptious of the Local Branch Leagues. 

I told Herbert Gladstone that you had suggested to me the 
ColHngs amendment.^ Could you not see Mr. Gladstone and 
push the matter? I also told Herbert Gladstone that Grosvenor 
was not to be trusted. 

I shall, I suppose, see you in the House this afternoon. Never 
shall we have a better chance, but if we do not use our chances, 
they will disappear. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

^It was upon this Amendment that Lord Salisbury's Government was 
defeated. 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 317 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

40 Prince's Gardens, S. W., Feb. 15, 1886.' 

My dear Labouchere, — ... As regards out future policy 
I can say nothing at present, but I think that a closer inspection 
of the difficulties in the way has brought Mr. Gladstone nearer 
to me than he was when he first came to London. If Parnell is 
impracticable my hope is that we may all agree to give way to 
the Tories and let them do the coercion which will then be 
necessary. They will be supported for this purpose by a clear 
majority in the country and probably in the House. As for 
passing Home Rule resolutions at the present time, I utterly 
disbelieve in its possibility. — Yours very truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain * 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, March 31, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — There would be much joy in the 
Radical heaven if things could be hit off with you, and they 
would all be ready to put Elijah's mantle on you if they could 
come to some agreement as to this damned Irish question. 

The feeling is, I think, this : they are in favour of Home Rule, 
and do not particularly care about details, provided that the 
scheme settles the matter. They do not love the Irish, but hate 
them, and would give them Home Rule on the Gladstone or 
Canada pattern to get rid of them. Home Rule, therefore, 
whatever the Whigs may say, will be carried. They are dead 
against any employment of English credit for the Irish landlords 
or Irish tenants. This — whatever the detail of Mr. Gladstone's 
plan may be — will be lost. 

1 rather suspect that the revered G. 0. M. is playing a game; 
he is bound to Spencer, therefore he is to bring in his Land Bill. 
But, if it meets with disapproval, is it likely that he will throw 

' The lull in Mr. Labouchere's correspondence is accounted for by the fact 
that Lord Salisbury's Government, finding itself in a minority of 79 on the 
early morning of January 27, resigned, and, on February 26, Mr. Glad- 
stone became Prime Minister for the third time. Mr. Chamberlain became 
President of the Local Government Board. 

2 Mr. Chamberlain had resigned his post in the Cabinet on March 16. 



3i8 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

up the Home Rule sponge for the sake of Spencer and the Irish 
landlords? Will he not rather say that it is a detail of a great 
project, and not an essential one? 

Now, just see what would be the position if we could act with 
you on these lines? The Whigs would be cleared out. If 
Gladstone is beaten, we would soon upset a Hartington cum 
Conservative Government. We might have grandiose revolu- 
tions — giving cows to agriculturists, and free breakfast tables 
to artisans. We should be against Tories, Whigs, and Lords. 
With you to the front we should win at an election, or if not at 
once, later on. There never was such an opportunity to establish 
a Radical party, and to carry all before it. Is it worth while 
wrecking this beautiful future, for the sake of some minor details 
about Irish Government? You may depend upon it, that the 
Irish, if not granted Gladstone's Home Rule, will never assent 
to anything else. Coercion would follow, and this would give 
power to the Tory Whigs for years. For my part, I would coerce 
the Irish, grant them Home Rule, or do anything with them, in 
order to make the Radical programm^e possible. Ireland is but 
a pawn in the game. If they make fools of themselves when 
left to themselves, it would be easy to treat them as the North 
did the South, rule by the sword, and suppress all representation. 
— Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

Reform Club, April 7, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — Any number of Radicals expressed 
their hope this afternoon in the House that you would see your 
way to approve of Mr. Gladstone's amended Bill. They are all 
most anxious that you should be the Elisha of the aged Elijah, 
and aid in getting this Irish question out of the way. 

I believe that the old Parliamentary Hand means to throw 
out that, on details, discussion can take place in Committee. The 
line, I hear, on Excise and Customs is: Do you want the Irish 
Members? if not, you must give them Excise and Customs; if 
you do, this is not necessary. 

I was asked to sound Parnell a couple of days ago about 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 319 

annexing Belfast and the adjacent country to England. I did 
not see him, but I learnt that he is strongly against it. The pro- 
ject is, I think, now abandoned, for the Scotch seem likely to 
go straight without it, and the Belfast people do not want it. 

To the best of my belief the real number that Hartington has 
got is sixty. We cannot make out about Ponsonby calling on 
Hartington, unless the Queen is anticipating events, and sounding 
him about what she must do, if asked to dissolve. Randolph 
tells me that Lord Salisbury called upon him to settle details 
about the debate. I doubt whether this is precisely true. — 
Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

40 Prince's Gardens, S. W., April 8, 1886.' 

My dear Labouchere, — Nothing would give me greater 
pleasure than to come back to the fold. Unfortunately I am 
told to-day on the highest authority that the scheme to be pro- 
posed to-night will not meet the main objections which led to 
my resignation. I am very sorry, as I was and am in the most 
conciliatory mood. — Yours very truly, 

J. L. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, April 15, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — Some friends of yours are urging 
that there should be an interview between you and Mr. Glad- 
stone. They asked me what I thought? I said that it was 
doubtful whether this would lead to much beyond vague talk 
by Mr. Gladstone. 

You objected to (i) Members being excluded, (2) Magistrates 
not being appointed by England, (3) Excise and Customs. No 
3 is given up. No i is an open question, which is practically 
yielded. There remains, therefore, only No. 2. As regards the 
two Orders, I presume that Mr. Gladstone alluded to them, when 
he said that he did not himself deem guarantees necessary. 

^ On April 8 Mr. Gladstone moved the first reading of the Home Rule Bill. 



320 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

There is no reason therefore why we should not throw them out 
in Committee, or if they pass, and there is a Radical majority 
in Parliament later on, reconsider the matter. So the Bill has 
been remodelled on your pattern. 

As regards the Land Bill, ^ I hear that Lord Spencer says that 
if it is thrown out in the House of Commons, he will not complain. 
Mr. Gladstone therefore avoids trouble by bringing it in, and as 
the Conservatives cannot well vote for it, I am sure that we can 
throw it out on the Second Reading. 

Your coming over would ensure the passing of the Irish 
Government Bill; it would go to the Lords. Then Queen, Lords, 
and Whigs would be on one side, and the Radicals on the other. 
Mr. Gladstone must soon come to an end. You would be our 
leader. The Whigs would be hopelessly bogged. Radicalism 
would be triumphant. Does not this tempt you? It really 
does seem such a pity with the promised land before us, that we 
should wander off into the wilderness, on account of small differ- 
ences of detail. There is no scheme which the mind of man could 
contrive that would not be open to criticism. A better one than 
that of Mr. Gladstone is conceivable, but show me how any body 
of men would be found to agree upon any other scheme? There 
is nothing more easy than Constitution making, except criticising 
the Constitutions made by others, and there always are, and 
always will be, a number of people to go against any scheme. — 
Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

40 Prince's Gardens, S. W., April 17, 1886. 

No. I. 

My dear Labouchere, — I really made a great effort last 
night to come to an arrangement, and whether it is successful 
or not depends now on Mr. Gladstone's inclination to meet me 
half way — rather perhaps I should say it depends upon the action 
of yourself and other Radical members who agree with my views 
and are in a position to bring sufficient pressure to bear upon the 
Whigs to make reconciliation a certainty. 

' Land Bill introduced and the First Reading on April i6. 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 321 

I am quite convinced, from the information that reaches me, 
that unless some such reconcihation is effected the Liberal party- 
will be hopelessly divided at the general election. 

The majority will very likely go with the party machinery 
and with Mr. Gladstone, but a sufficient number will stand aloof 
to make success impossible. 

We cannot leave the matter uncertain till after the 2nd reading. 
I know enough of Parliamentary tactics to be sure that in that 
case we shall get nothing, but be beaten in detail on every division. 
All I ask is that Mr. Gladstone should give some sufficient assur- 
ance that he will consent — first, to the retention of the Irish 
representation at Westminster on its present footing according 
to population, and at the same time the maintenance of Imperial 
control over Imperial taxation in Ireland ; and secondly, that he 
should be wilHng to abandon all the so-called safeguards in connec- 
tion with the Constitution of the new legislative body in Dublin. 

You can get this assurance if you like, and the matter is 
therefore in your hands. — Yours very truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, April 17, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I made it quite clear and distinct 
both to Herbert Gladstone and to Arnold Morley what you 
wanted, after seeing you. Herbert is to tackle his father on the 
subject. I have no doubt that we can arrange the matter. 
Arnold Morley would hold that, anyhow, you would vote for the 
Bill. I said that this was not quite so certain, and that your 
proposal was a reasonable one. Herbert Gladstone said that 
his father did not in the least undervalue your support, and 
considered that your present attitude was paralysing the party 
outside Parliament. Some friends of yours were getting up a 
memorandum to Mr. Gladstone about the Bill, asking him to 
promise this and that. Do pray stop them. If once we get 
to memorandums we shall have counter ones from the Whigs, 
and they put Mr. Gladstone in a hole. 

Herbert Gladstone says that the real bona fide difficulty of 
his father is, that he cannot devise a scheme. Could you not let 



322 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

me have one? This would settle this nonsense. How would 
it be if proxies were allowed in respect to the Irish? — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

P. S. — What day is your meeting at Birmingham? 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

40 Prince's Gardens, S. W., April 17, 1886. 
No. 2. 

My dear Labouchere, — Since writing you I have received 
your card. It is necessary that I should say that nothing will 
induce me to vote for the second reading, unless I get some assur- 
ance of Mr. Gladstone's willingness to maintain the Irish repre- 
sentation. I do not think there is any practical difficulty in the 
way greater than, or as great as, the difficulties already attempted 
to be overcome in the Bill. I am told that Morley stands in the 
way of a reconciliation as he considers himself pledged by his 
Chelmsford speech to the exclusion of the Irish members from 
Westminster. 

As regards the memorandum, I understand that it is only to 
the Whips for their information, and not for Mr. Gladstone. I 
think it may safely be allowed to go on. I believe a number of 
the Whips would be quite willing to sign it and to accept the 
compromise. 

My meeting at Birmingham is on Wednesday. I will try and 
maintain a conciliatory attitude, but the position becomes 
increasingly difficult. I am bothered out of my life to attend 
Radical meetings in different parts of the country. I have already 
received invitations from Manchester, Rochdale, Glasgow, Edin- 
burgh, Woolwich, and other places. 

I need not say that I do not want to start on a campaign 
unless it is absolutely necessary. — Yours very truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

Pope's Villa, Twickenham, April 19, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I write you a line to catch the 
post. Herbert Gladstone told me that he had talked with his 



1886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 323 

father on the matter last Saturday. The difficulty of Mr. 
Gladstone seems to be this: he has no great objection himself to 
the Irish Members sitting here. But he does not like to consult 
his Cabinet, for fear of resignations, and does not like to give a 
pledge without consulting them. He considers that he has already 
said a good deal in his speeches to show how open his mind is. 

Now, would it not be possible for us all to vote for the Second 
Reading, and to announce that we shall go for the Members 
sitting in Committee? It is true that we risk being beaten. 
But, according to the Whips— and so far as I can make it out 
they are correct—there is a majority for the Bill on the Second 
Reading. In the main the Members will vote for the principle 
of Home Rule on the Second Reading, however opposed they may 
be to certain details. The estimate is that this majority will 
be from fifteen to twenty. As a rule, however, doubtfuls gravi- 
tate into the party fold, so it possibly will be more. It cannot, 
however, be sufficiently large to make the Government independ- 
ent of us in Committee. We shall be the masters of the situation, 
and Mr. Gladstone will completely bleed to death instead of 
being murdered by us, for the odds are that the Bill will never 
come out of Committee. 

I venture, therefore, to think that, seeing the difficulties of 
Mr. Gladstone giving any specific pledge, seeing the tone of 
Members, and seeing the objections to going against the vast 
majority of Radicals and with the Whigs, it would be well to 
rest satisfied, if Mr. Gladstone will distinctly agree to leave the 
matter an open question. I think that we can get a majority 
of Radicals both on the " Member ' ' question and on the ' ' Order ' ' 
question. The course I propose seems to be the best practically. 
We have a meeting at the St. James's Hall, on Thursday, at 
which I am to take the Chair. The Resolution is conceived in 
the above spirit, and I have already had rows with some of the 
Members who are to attend, because they say it looks like knock- 
ing under to Chamberlain. It assents to Second Reading, but 
trusts that the measure will be modified in a democratic sense in 
Committee. This we shall carry. 

I do not myself believe in Morley's resignation, nor indeed in 
Harcourt's. It is possible, however, that the Lord Chancellor 
will be firm, though I understand that he likes his salary. 



324 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

Supposing that you voted against the Second Reading with 
ten followers. This would be a tactical fiasco. If, however, 
you carried all the Radicals with you — or almost all — in Com- 
mittee, this would be a tactical success, whilst the Radicals 
would be delighted with your acting with them on the first, and 
would act with you on the second. Had we begun sooner, I 
think that we could have got up a pronouncement against the 
Bill, if the point were not yielded. But most of the Radicals 
have now compromised themselves. 

I talked to Hartington and some of the Whigs this evening. 
They seemed to me rather down-hearted. I suspect that they 
are not getting the support that they anticipated. This is 
always the case with a big cave, — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

Pope's Villa, Twickenham, April 19, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — Your letters will go to Mr. Glad- 
stone this evening. If he is wise he will make terms about the 
Members sitting. I hear that he was very much put out about 
your speech, and no one dared to speak to him before he left for 
Hawarden. 

John Morley is going to speak on Wednesday. He will be 
conciliatory, and say, "If a plan can be devised, etc." 

Mr. Gladstone should ask you for your plan, as he says that 
he cannot make one. 

I don't well see how he can promise to go against the guaran- 
tees. He has already said that they are inserted for weaker 
brethren. They will, if retained, and if we vote against them, 
keep the Irish on our side. 

Don't forget that if you do not get what you want, there is 
still the Third Reading. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

Pope's Villa, Twickenham, April 20, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — You will see our resolution in the 
Daily News of to-day. Do you see your way to write me a little 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 325 

letter, in reply to a supposed one from me asking you what you 
think of the resolution and expressing a hope that the Radical 
party will be united, etc. It would not do if you were to say 
that you should vote against the Second Reading, but could 
you not blink this — say something about the principle of the Bill 
being the principle of justice, and that in Committee the Radicals 
must unite to insist upon the admission of Members and the 
abrogation of the orders. If you could not absolutely do this, you 
might leave it vague, allowing some to think that you will vote 
for the Second Reading and others to think that you will not. 

I am writing to Dilke to ask him if he can see his way to 
write a similar letter. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

Highbury, Moor Green, 
' Birmingham, April 21, 1886. 

My dear Labouchere, — The Resolution which you send me, 
and which is to be proposed at your meeting to-morrow night, 
seems well designed to unite the Radical party. We are all 
fortunately agreed that the principle of Home Rule in some shape 
or another must be accepted, and we only differ, if at all, as to 
the methods by which it is to be carried into effect. For myself, 
I firmly believe that Home Rule may be conceded in such a form 
as to join the three Kingdoms more closely together. On the 
other hand, I fear that the effect of the Bill in its present shape 
would be to bring about absolute separation at no distant date. 
I hope the Government may see its way to accept the modifica- 
tions which Radicals advocate, and if any assurance to this 
effect is given I shall gladly support the Second Reading in the 
hope that minor improvements may be effected in it. — I am, 

yours truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

Highbury, Moor Green, 
Birmingham, April 22, 1886. 

My dear Labouchere, — My speech last night will show you 



326 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

where I am. I cannot say that I am surprised at the desire of 
the friends of the Government that objectors should accept the 
Second Reading and reserve their opposition for the Committee 
stage; but the advice is too transparent and cannot possibly be 
accepted. 

I do not believe there is really the least difficulty in allowing 
the Irish Members to come to Westminster and there to vote 
only on questions which are not referred to them at Dublin. 
John Morley's difficulties are childish and perfectly insignificant 
as compared with the difficulties which Mr. Gladstone has already 
surmounted in the preparation of his Bill. 

Bradford election shows what will be the end of it all. In 
spite of the large Irish vote now transferred to the Liberal can- 
didate the majority of 1500 has dwindled to half that number! 
I am being bullied to attend Radical meetings in all parts of the 
country, but at present I have replied that I am not willing to 
undertake anything in the nature of a campaign against Glad- 
stone. At the same time I am pressing all my correspondents 
to try to bring about an arrangement by mutual concession. I 
confess I am not very sanguine of success. — Believe me, yours 
truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

HiGHBURY, Moor Green, 
Birmingham, April 24, 1886. 

My dear Labouchere, — I cannot authorise the change you 
suggest in my letter, which I only wrote as you asked me for it, 
without much idea that it would be useful. 

I think the chance of any reunion is very slight. I certainly 
could not agree to vote for the second reading without preliminary 
assurances as to retention of the Irish representation. 

I have no doubt that the result of my action will involve 
temporary unpopularity with the Radical party, but they will 
probably want my help again at some future time, and will then 
exhibit as short a memory and as little consistency as they are 
doing now on the question of Irish Government. 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 327 

In the meantime the honour of leading a party so uncertain 
appears to me less clear than it did some months ago. — Believe 
me, yours very truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Labouchere to Sir Charles Dilke 

Pope's Villa, Twickenham, April 24, 1886. 

My dear Dilke, — Chamberlain sent me a letter for the St. 
James's Hall meeting, but it came too late. It would not, how- 
ever, have helped matters, for he sticks to the phrase "the Gov- 
ernment accepts. ' ' I had a letter from him this morning, much in 
the same tone, also one from Morley, who says that Chamber- 
lain's speech is an attempt to coerce the Government, and that 
they won't stand coercion. 

I have been trying to get Chamberlain to agree to vote for 
the Second Reading, on condition that the Government makes 
the admission of Irish in Parliament a bona fide open question, on 
which the House may vote without official leading and without 
the Whips telling. If he would do so, this would reconcile these 
two babies. I really don't see how Gladstone can accept modi- 
fications, before Committee, urged in this sic volo sic jubes style. 
Could you suggest from Chamberlain (as from yourself) that he 
might be satisfied with the open question. He says that he 
would be beaten in Committee. But I don't see this — and even 
if it were so, he would have many opportunities hereafter to 
get back his friends, the Irish, if he really wants them. The 
great point is to find some modus vivendi which would keep the 
Radicals together, and to this he ought to subordinate much, 
instead of making difficulties. The Radicals do not take his 
point about the objections to fight in Committee, and there will 
be a row about his bullying the G. O. M. On so big an issue, his 
position is untenable — the Whig one is more reasonable. If only 
once a negotiation could be started upon the open question basis, 
Mr. Gladstone would manage to dodge him into voting for the 
Second Reading, and this is all that is wanted in Chamberlain's 
own interest. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 



328 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

Sir Charles Dilke to Mr. Labouchere 

Pyrford, Woking (undated). 

My dear Labouchere, — It looks as though the §econd Read- 
ing will be rejected, and, if Mr. Gladstone appeals to the constit- 
uencies, it will, I fancy, be a rout. But I quite agree as to the 
great importance of patching up the fued between Chamberlain 
and Mr. Gladstone, for the sake of everybody and everything, 
and I shall continue to do all I can in that sense. I had a letter 
from Chamberlain as to Ireland on Saturday to which I replied. 
I think my reply will bring another, and on that I can try again 

in your sense. — Yours, 

Chas. W. Dilke. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

Pope's Villa, Twickenham, April 24, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — Naturally the Radical Associa- 
tions want to hear you, for even so humble an individual as I 
am gets a dozen letters every morning asking me to go to meet- 
ings at all sorts of places. 

I think that the feeling in the country is this : 

They regard the principle of the Bill to be a Domestic Legisla- 
tion for Ireland. The Radicals are in the main opposed to 
"orders" and to exclusion of Irish. They do not like the idea 
of Radicals voting with the Whigs and Tories against the prin- 
ciple, and the view that it would be impossible for successful 
opposition to take place in Committee against the "orders" and 
the "admission" is too complicated for their understandings. 
In fact they don't want a Party division to be spoilt, and wish 
to humble the Tories and the Whigs. 

Morley writes to me to-day to say that your speech means 
coercion. I have replied that in all things there must be a give 
and take. 

I am sure that if you can get an assurance that the question 
of the admission is to be a bona fide open one, that we should win 
on it — assuming that the Conservatives go for it. Such an 
arrangement avoids the necessity of either side marching under 
the harrow. 



1886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 329 

Once the question left open, in the interval between the 
Second Reading and Committee, we could get up a strong 
agitation for the "admission," whilst no one would be opposing 
us, and you would have all the credit of the alteration. — Yours 
truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

Highbury, Moor Green, 
Birmingham, April 30, 1886. 

My dear Labouchere, — I think that you must now see 
that the Irish Bills in their present form are doomed. 

I have a list of 1 1 1 Liberals pledged against Second Reading. 
Of these I know of 59 who have publicly communicated their 
intentions to their constituents. I believe most of the rest are 
safe, but, making all allowances for desertions, there is not much 
chance of forcing the Second Reading through. 

I know of many men who are pledged like yourself to vote 
for amendments in Committee, and some who are pledged to 
vote against Second Reading if the amendments are not carried. 

The Land Bill has no friends at all. 

It is difficult to say what my own following as distinguished 
from Hartington's is, but I reckon that something like fifty 
would vote for Second Reading, if my amendments were con- 
ceded. 

It is time that a final decision was taken. The fight is grow- 
ing hotter every day and the division of the party will be irre- 
trievable if the controversy is pushed much further. I am not 
surprised at the action of the Caucuses. I know them pretty 
well, and they consist of the most active and thoroughgoing 
partisans. But it is the men who stay away who turn elections, 
and there will be a larger abstention on this Irish question than 
we have ever had before in the history of the Liberal party. 

I believe the issue is in the hands of Radicals like yourself. 
If you exert the necessary pressure the Bills may be recast. 
Much has been done by their introduction. The Party as a 
whole has accepted their principle of Home Rule, and we might 
come to an agreement about the details. But this will be out 



330 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

of the question if we go into opposite lobbies on the Second 
Reading. 

There is no necessity to withdraw the Bill at once If the 
Government will give the necessary assurance of amendments 
to retain Irish Representation and Imperial control of taxation, 
we might carry Second Reading and then the Bills could be 
committed pro forma for the necessary changes, or withdrawn 
for the session. 

All our people would be delighted at the postponement of the 
dissolution, and in the interval we might kiss and be friends. 
I do not suppose the Chief will listen to this, but I have thought 
it right to make one more effort before the battle is finally engaged 
— Yours truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, May i, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I have been doing my best to get 
some sort of modus vivendi in which the honours of war would be 
divided. 

I had a letter from Morley yesterday in which he promised 
to be most conciliatory at Glasgow. He said: 

"I don't think there is a pin of difference between you 

and me as to the desirableness of passing the Second 

Reading at almost any cost. But Chamberlain wants 

us to go down on our knees, and this cannot be done for 

the money." 

He had previously suggested to me what he said, I see, at 

Glasgow about the Irish Members coming back in three years. 

I replied that this might possibly form a basis, but that it must 

in this case be understood that they came back without any 

further legislature on the subject. To this he demurred, but I 

think that he would not make difficulties. 

I do not dispute your figures, but I would point out to you 
that some of your fifty can be manipulated. As a rule a big cave 
does not hold together. Some of its Members in the end take 
refuge in voting for a Party Bill, and give as a pretext some 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 331 

phrase used by the Minister for having done so, and in the 
G. O, M, you have a past master in these sort of catching phrases. 

I was brought up in diplomacy. When two countries send 
each other their ultimatums, a third country desirous of peace 
proposes something between the two, and peace is made upon 
its adoption by the belligerents. 

I have been suggesting that Mr. Gladstone should agree to 
leave the ques ion an open one, the word "open" being under- 
stood to signify that the Whips do not tell, and that every one — 
Ministers included — should be allowed to vote as they please. 
I don't well see how the G. 0. M. could go further. Although 
we may call it a detail, the exclusion of Irish Members is really 
a fundamental principle in the Bill, and were he absolutely to 
agree to change it, this would be, as Morley says, going down on 
his knees to you who, whether right or wrong, are the head centre 
of the Radical minority, and not of the majority. Would you, 
yourself, eat humble pie to this extent ? Moreover, I think 
that, if he had to submit this proposal to his Cabinet, there would 
be suspicions, and the Cabinet just now can hardly stand another 
spHt. 

I have never gathered that Mr. Gladstone himself is opposed 
to the retention of the Irish. All that he says is, "The problem 
is a difficult one: show me a good plan and I have no objection 
to adopt it." 

There is another way of meeting you, but I don't know 
whether Mr. Gladstone would accept it. It is this. Leave 
matters as they now are with respect to the Irish Members, by 
eliminating all clauses excluding them. Their position would 
thus be left to future legislation on the subject. They would 
in this case sit as they are, and vote upon Imperial and 
English local issues until the entire question is treated in a 
separate Bill. 

A third plan might be that of John Morley's, to exclude them 
for three years, and for them at the end to come back as they 
are now, unless any alteration during the interval be legislatively 
made in their position. 

Parnell is very much opposed to the retention. He puts his 
opposition upon the difficulty of getting Irishmen to come over. 
He asks whether there are to be two separate elections, or only 



332 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

one. In the first case, he complains of the expense and of the 
difficulty of finding men, in the second he asks how men can sit 
and vote in both Parliaments when they are both sitting at the 
same time. 

Do pray be conciliatory in the matter, and be satisfied with 
the substance. If the "open question" were granted, I am sure 
that you would have a majority of Radicals, who agree with you 
in the main, but think that they ought to regard the Second 
Reading at the conservation of the principle of a domestic Legis- 
lature for Ireland. After all, a General Election with a Radical 
split would either give Mr. Gladstone a majority against you, 
or would end in a Conservative victory, neither of which would 
be a gain to you. 

I take Brand's constituents of Stroud, and the constituency 
of Ipswich as specimens of public feeling, for I have been at both 
of them this week. 

At Stroud we had a meeting. The Whigs did not attend. 
Winterbotham took the chair. He announced that he should 
vote against the Bill. There were groans and "three cheers 
for Gladstone." I went for the Bill, but explained that it 
was desirable that the Irish Members should be retained, 
and that this was your view. There were shouts of "let him 
vote with Gladstone on the Second Reading." At the end 
some overzealous ass proposed "three cheers for Brand." 
This was met with a chorus of howls and groans. I enquired 
later on what was the real position, and was told that all 
the Radicals were against Brand, but that there would be 
no use calling upon him to resign, as about five hundred Whigs 
would stick to him, and these with the Conservatives would 
secure his return. 

At Ipswich the meeting was entirely for the Second Read- 
ing. I praised up Collins, etc. They cheered his name, but 
whilst dead against the Land Bill, went for the other Bill, and 
did not seem to care much for details. Two of the County 
Members spoke. They had been returned — mainly through 
CoUins's exertions — but they told me that the agricultural labour- 
ers wanted the question settled, and did not care much how it 
was settled. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 333 

P. S. — You have never let me have your "plan" in reply to 
the observation, that the idea is good in theory, but that the 
practical difficulties are insuperable. 

Telegram, Mr. Gladstone to Mr. Labouchere 

Ha WARDEN, May i, 1886. 

Herbert Gladstone expected from Scotland to-night letter 
from me to Midlothian will shortly appear. ^ 

Gladstone. 
Labouchere, 
10 Queen Anne's Gate, S. W. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

Pope's Villa, Twickenham, May i, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I have just got this telegram. If 
Mr. Gladstone has not told you that he is going to write his 
letter, don't please let it out. I sent him yesterday your 
figures as to the division, and preached as strongly as I could 
conciliation, telling him that some sort of give-and-take 
modus Vivendi should be arrived at, otherwise the Bill might be 
lost. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, May 3, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — Mr. Gladstone has your ultima- 
tumest of ultimatums. My impression is that he will assent. 
I had a talk with Morley this morning, and knocked it well into 
his head that the question, as you say, is to be or not to be as 
regards the Bill. 

^ On May 3, a manifesto was issued from Mr. Gladstone in which he in- 
timated that the Land Bill was no longer to be an essential article of the 
Liberal faith, and that, in the Home Rule Bill, all questions of detail were 
subsidiary. The only important thing was to support the principle of estab- 
lishing a Legislative Body in Dublin empowered to make laws for Irish as 
distinguished from Imperial affairs. 



334 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

The decision will depend very much upon the figures. 
Of course they don't take yours au pied de la lettre, but they 
evidently are thoroughly uncomfortable about them. They 
admit that the feeling throughout the country is in favour 
of the Irish remaining. Harcourt blustered fearfully in the 
Cabinet about his intentions. Perhaps it might be well if 
you were to write him a letter. If we can bring about an 
arrangement, it will be a great thing for the party — put aside 
the Bill. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr, Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

House of Commons, May 3, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I am pretty sure now that your 
terms will be accepted. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

House of Commons, May 3, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — Since writing to you Arnold 
Morley asked me to come into his room. He said that he had 
been shown your letter, and wished to ask me whether I thought 
that the terms were the lowest that you would take. I said 
" Yes," that I thought they were. Was I quite certain that you 
would not vote for the bill if there were no concession? Quite 
certain. Was it to be understood that you would vote for it if 
Mr. Gladstone said that the Government would support or bring 
in a clause granting representation to Ireland, leaving it for 
Committee to say how many constituted representation? I 
said, that I understood this, but that he had better consult your 
letter. 

I see that there would be a row at once if Mr. Gladstone were 
to go into details, so I should think that it would be better to 
leave them alone. I told him that moreover Members (one 
had) had told me that they would only vote for the Bill if you 
were satisfied, and that he must perceive that the Radicals were 
in favour of the Irish remaining here. He admitted this, and 



1886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 335 

promised to explain this to Mr. Gladstone; he had, he said, 
in fact represented this to him ten days ago, only then your 
terms were not so limited as now. 

Perhaps it might be well if you would write me a line (not 
in answer to this, or as though I had written to you) urging a 
speedy settlement — for Mr. Gladstone is apt to wait for something 
to turn up to his advantage. 

His letter to his electors is good clap-trap. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

Birmingham, May 4, 1886. 

My dear Labouchere, — My list alters every day as I re- 
ceive further reports from my correspondents. I have only had 
notice of two deserters, and the total figures now stand as follows : 

Promised against, 133 

Absolutely pledged, 84 

I have not heard anything from Mr. Gladstone, but have 
written to Harcourt as you suggest. I am unable to make more 
of Mr. Gladstone's manifesto than of many other of his public 
utterances, but I note one point with satisfaction. He says in 
effect that the retention of Irish members is a mere detail: to 
me it is vital, but if it is only a detail to him surely there is no 
excuse for his not publicly giving way. — Believe me, yours very 
truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

Highbury, Moor Green, 
Birmingham, May 4, 1886. 

My dear Labouchere, — I have a number of enquiries as 
to what I am going to do. I thought I had made it all clear in 
my speeches, but I reply to every one that I shall certainly vote 
against Second Reading unless I can get satisfactory assurances 
beforehand; and that I will not vote for Second Reading unless 
I know that the Government will keep the Irish Representation 



336 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

on its present footing. That means, of course, either 103 mem- 
bers or a reduction according to population. Any other repre- 
sentation would be illogical and absurd. The interest of Ireland 
in Imperial questions is in proportion to population and not to 
her share of total taxation. It might be in proportion to her 
share of the taxation for Imperial objects. Surely the best plan 
would be to accept your suggestion and for the Government to 
agree to drop the clauses about Representation at Westminster, 
leaving it an open question for Committee whether there should 
be any reduction, or any restriction on their liberty of speaking 
and voting on non-Imperial subjects. 

But will not Mr. Gladstone be content to secure the affirma- 
tion of the principle by Second Reading, vote, and then commit 
the Bill pro forma for amendments or withdraw it for the session? 

If anything is to be done it should be at once, otherwise I 
doubt if, even with my assistance, the Second Reading can be 
carried. The opposition is more numerous than I supposed, 
and is growing. — Yours very truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

In a previous letter I have sent you my latest figures. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

House of Commons, May 6, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — Morley would have agreed to 
leave out the clause. Mr. Gladstone would not. He has 
elaborated some alternative scheme, which is to come before 
the Cabinet to-morrow. 

From your personal standpoint I should say "take it." It 
will be a substantial concession, and will be made to you. If you 
do not, very possibly several of your followers will accept it. 

I really don't believe that you will get more. It will fully 
recognise the paramount character of the Imperial Parliament, 
enable Irish to vote on taxation. Imperial matters, etc., and I 
doubt whether the feeling is in favour of their voting on English 
issues. 

Anyhow, you get your principle recognised. The Bill, if it 
passes here, will be thrown out in the Lords. We shall go to 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 337 

the country, not on details of any Bill, but on a domestic legisla- 
ture for Ireland, and many things may happen before next year. 
■ — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

P. S. — Don't say anything about this yet, for it is not definite, 
and won't be until to-morrow's Cabinet. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

House of Commons, May 7, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — The Cabinet yesterday was not a 
formal one; there is to be one to-morrow. Some, I understand, 
are in favour of cutting out the clause respecting the exclusion 
of the Irish, and leaving the matter to future legislation — others 
suggest alternative schemes. Of this I am certain, it may be 
that terms will not be agreed to before the discussion on the 
Second Reading, but, provided that the Bill cannot be carried 
without you and your friends, the point will be yielded. I 
regard therefore the matter as done, so don't pray act as though 
it were not. Any one takes a certain time to make grimaces 
before he consumes his humble pie, and does not gulp it down, so 
long as he has any hope of being able to avoid doing so. — 
Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, May 8, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I have just been reporting progress 
at Downing Street. Wolverton, who was there, quite agreed 
that if you want ninety Irish, you ought to have them; and, in 
fact, the simplest thing is to leave the lot as they are. 

It was admitted that the Bill would require modifications, 
if the Irish are to sit. Objection was taken to our collecting all 
revenues on the score that the presence of the hated Saxon 
throughout the country would put the backs of the Irish up. 

You will perhaps remember that Parnell entirely objects to 
the amount of the quota, and so, by showing him that he will 
lose by the whisky system, we might get him to unite in insisting 
upon an alteration. 



338 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

The idea of Herschell — which I put forward as mine, and said 
that you did not seem to object — took. If they can hit it off in 
the Cabinet by four o'clock, they are to let me know, and I will 
send you a telegram. 

Things being as they are, I go to Hastings, with Therese 
Raquin to read in the train, with the hope that we are again 
a happy family. 

Don't with Herschell make it too clear that the food on which 
our friends are browsing is humble pie. The substance is every- 
thing, and no sooner will it be known that you mean to vote for 
the Second Reading, and that Mr. Gladstone knocks the bottom 
out of his tub as regards the exclusion of the Irish, than the Tories 
and the Whigs will point the moral. 

I read out the words which Mr. Gladstone was to use in his 
speech. "What then are the modifications?" they asked. I 
said that as he was not wanted to specify them, they ought to 
rest and be happy with the phrase. I said that all that I had 
written down was in no sort of way binding on you, and, so far 
as you were concerned, was non-existing, and that they were to 
be treated as my own pious opinions. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

P. S. — I said that I gathered that you would not be in this 
afternoon, but to-morrow morning. 

Telegram, Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

May 8, 1886. 

Stansfield who was in train says all went right at meeting 
this afternoon Herschell not there thought to be out of town if 
you do not hear from him this is why. 

Labouchere. 

Mr. Arnold Morley to Mr. Labouchere 

12 Downing Street, S. W., May 8, 1886. 

My dear Labouchere, — Herschell had to leave town before 
the end of the Cabinet, and on his return on Monday he will be 
sitting in the House of Lords. 

Perhaps later on it may be arranged. 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 339 

Would you or would you not telegraph to him to explain his 
not coming? — Yours truly, 

Arnold Morley. 

Mr, Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

Sunday, May 9, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — On coming back here from Hast- 
ings, I have found this letter from Arnold Morley. I think that 
the "cave in" is complete, and if you only seize the first oppor- 
tunity to accentuate it and to recognise it, your triumph will be 
complete — details are, comparatively speaking, unimportant. 
If you get into a discussion about them you lose your triumph. 
You went for "full representation," and, as I understand it, you 
get it. At the meeting at Hastings a speaker alluded to you — 
dead silence. The man next me said, "A few months ago they 
would have all cheered." When I spoke I said that I thought 
Mr. Gladstone would agree to Irish Representatives, in which 
case I thought that you would vote for Second Reading upon 
which the audience cheered again and again. This shows how 
the cat jumps even in a place like Hastings, which is not very 
Radical. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Sunday, May 9, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — Morley has just been here. He 
don't want you to be told more than that you will be satisfied. 
I told him that I had seen you, and had said generally that you 
were mistaken in supposing that the Cabinet did not intend to 
yield, and that I had gathered from you that if they did, you 
would probably vote for the Second Reading. They are, I find, 
in some trouble about their definite statement about the third 
point — the right of the Irish to come here by requisition of the 
Dublin Parhament on all Imperial matters. They are prepared 
to elaborate some plan for them to legislate — or to have the power 
to legislate — upon such matters, but they have not yet themselves 
made out the plan to their satisfaction, nor can they agree as to 
what is Imperial and what is not. Mr. Gladstone therefore will 



340 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

be rather guarded on this head, but he will (says Morley) make 
it quite clear that they accept the principle, and they bona fide 
are prepared to give it effect. They are, moreover, rather afraid 
of being too definite, because they have not seen nor heard any- 
thing from Parnell, and will not have the opportunity to do so 
before the debate commences. They assert that practically 
representation and taxation involve pretty well all Imperial 
measures — and this is to a great extent the fact, for the Crown 
declares war, makes treaties, etc. Anyhow they are quite ready 
to meet you on this, and if you think that Mr. Gladstone's words 
are too vague, or can suggest any others, Herschell will consult 
with you. Morley says that they are not going to take the de- 
bate next week, de die in diem. So if needed, anything can be 
cleared up on Tuesday. But he, of course, is anxious that you 
should declare your acceptance of the Bill as soon as possible. 

I finally told him to impress upon his great chief, that he must 
be clear. I really think that they are fully prepared to satisfy 
you. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

40 Prince's Gardens, S. W., Sunday. 

My dear Labouchere, — What does your letter mean? It 
seems to me that you are being bamboozled by the old Parlia- 
mentary hand. Both Mr. Gladstone and Herbert Gladstone 
told people yesterday that they were not going to give way. 

I am not going to leave the matter to Committee ; unless the 
assurances to-morrow are precise and definite, I shall certainly 
vote against the Second Reading. — Yours very truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Monday, May 10, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — Morley did not leave until one 
o'clock this morning, when I had a letter posted to you. I think 
that I put it perhaps too strongly about the "On Imperial mat- 
ters," but I had been fighting for the exact words, and was cross 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 341 

about their not being precisely as I understood they were to be. 
Morley vowed that they would be. I said that they were not. 
Practically they are. I really do believe that they have not got 
a definition of "imperial," and they only do not want to bind 
themselves to the Irish Parliament being obliged to demand 
representation. I said ' ' peace and war . ' ' Morley replied , ' ' this 
belongs to the Crown, and is raised by supplies." I suggested 
"a commercial reciprocity treaty." He replied, "this too is in 
the hands of the Crown, and is raised by a change in taxation." 
I do not think that there is any mala fides, but a desire to 
avoid hostile criticism, on "what is Imperial." Morley vowed 
to me again and again that there was no intention to dodge, and 
that having given up the principle they asked for nothing better 
than to make it full. I suggested, " all questions not excluded by 
the Bill." He replied, " state what questions, not involved in tax- 
ation, you mean, and show where one does not overlap the other." 
As regards the Committee, they still hold to it, and this will 
cover most of the questions. 

Please think this over, and if you can suggest any definite 
line of demarcation, and will give it me in the House, I will let 
Mr. Gladstone have it before he speaks. 

My last words to Moriey were : " Chamberiain is quite fair on 
his side: he has a natural distrust of the old Parliamentary hand, 
and will not be humbugged. He no doubt will not quarrel over 
mere words, but he must have the substance. Knock this well 
into Mr. Gladstone's head." 

I write you this, because, thinking it over, I may have exag- 
gerated a thing in which there is nothing important.— Yours 
truly, 

H. Labouchere. 
Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

House of Commons, Monday, May 10, 1886. 

My DEAR Chamberlain,— I gave Arnold Morley three 
questions to take to Mr. Gladstone. 

1. Would he propose the retention of Irish Members for all 
questions of taxation? 

2. Would they come here like English Members? 



342 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

3. Would taxation include everything which was involved 
in Imperial taxation afEecting them? 

He answered "yes" to all, but said that in regard to taxation 
he had suddenly thought that the tea tax is renewed every year, 
and that he had not put this before the Cabinet, but he personally 
had no sort of objection to their voting on it, and did not suppose 
that the Cabinet had. 

I suggested that Herschell should see you. He writes to say 
that he will be engaged all Tuesday and suggests Wednesday. 

I have told them — which they all know — that the speech has 
produced the most deplorable effect, and that you are quite 
right in being indignant ; and that unless they definitely make up 
their minds to explain everything satisfactorily, the Bill is lost. 
This they admit. 

I am urging on them to agree to introduce themselves a clause 
about "other Imperial matters," and I tell them that unless 
they are frank and yield on such points it is utterly vain to hope 
to win over you or any one else. 

The funny thing is that Mr. Gladstone has walked off under 
the conviction that his speech was most satisfactory. — Yours, 

H. Labouchere. 

Telegram, Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

House of Commons, May 11, 1886. 

I think they are quite conscious of their mistake, and ready 
to capitulate along the line. Would it not be possible to see the 
emissary to-morrow or Thursday? 

Labouchere. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

40 Prince's Gardens, S. W., May 11, 1886. 

My dear Labouchere, — In the remarkable speech of the 
Prime Minister last night, ^ nothing impressed me more than the 
passages in which he spoke of the advantages of public declara- 
tions in the House of Commons as contrasted with the incon- 
venience of underground negotiations carried on elsewhere. 

I Motion made for Second Reading of Home Rule Bill and cimendment. 
on May loth. 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 343 

Under all circumstances you will, I am sure, approve my 
decision not to enter on any further private discussions of the 
proposals of the Government. 

If they have any fresh modifications to suggest, I hope they will 
state them in the House, when I am sure they will receive the most 
favourable consideration from all who, like myself, deeply regret 
the differences of opinion which have arisen in the Liberal Party. 

I am engaged all Wednesday, but this is of no consequence, 
as in the present position of matters no good could come of any 
private interview. — Yours very truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

Mr. Labouchere appends a note to this letter as follows: 

"This is in reply to a letter I wrote Chamberlain last night 
to say that he would do well to keep quiet, as probably Herschel, 
would see him on Wednesday — not having been able to see him 
last Saturday." 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

Twickenham, May 17, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — If I speak to-day or to-morrow, 
I shall say nothing about negotiations. 

This is, I think, about what occurred. Mr. Gladstone was 
ready to yield and bring in the "Imperial matters" Clause before 
the Saturday Cabinet. At the Cabinet he was asked whether 
he had elaborated such a clause, which previously he had said 
was impossible to devise. He had to admit that he had not, and 
so a lot of asses, some of whom did not understand the exact point, 
and the necessity of sticking to any agreement, talked on until 
it was time for them all to go away. 

On Sunday, when I first saw Arnold Morley after receiving 
your note, he vowed that it was all agreed to, and as I told you 
I wrote down the three points in his presence. When he came 
in the evening, after having sent to Mr. Gladstone, he explained 
that it was impossible absolutely to say that Mr. Gladstone would 
pledge himself to bring in the Third Clause, because he had not 
framed any Clause, and could not give a definite promise until 
he knew whether he could frame it. I urged him not to leave 



344 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

Mr. Gladstone until he had framed it, and there was a Cabinet 
on Monday. Still it was not framed. Hence Mr. Gladstone's 
extraordinary shilly-shally speech. They all perceived what 
fools they had been, except those who were anxious that no 
agreement should be come to with you (notably Harcourt who 
is playing for the succession), and it was hoped that Herschell 
would be able to smooth down matters. There was to be a 
Cabinet on Thursday, and I think the Clause would have been 
framed, only by this time they did not see why they should yield, 
if concession would not ensure the Bill, and Mr. Gladstone (as 
usual) thought that time should be taken to see how things 
developed themselves. 

In the House, as you know, there is a feeling that the Bill 
should be read as a declaration of the principle of "a local legis- 
lature," and nothing more. Mr. Gladstone has not said a word 
about this. It would be a bitter pill, and he is just now in a 
prophetic state of belief that, if he dissolves, he will carry every- 
thing before him. What the Constituencies will do, neither you, 
nor he, nor any one else can predicate. It may be that with the 
Irish vote, the desire to settle, the belief in him, and the notion 
that he has been treated ungenerously, he will win. My impres- 
sion is that we shall be much as we are, except that the Tories 
will be strengthened at the expense of the Liberal and Radical 
seceders. 

Now, I put this to you for my private information. It is no 
proposal from Government. They hold that you are irreconcil- 
able, and are sulking. Supposing that he would withdraw the 
Bill after Second Reading, could you have a better and a bigger 
triumph? Read Salisbury's speech. Does this look Hke real 
union? Randolph is used to promise privately, but Salisbury 
has a vague idea of honour, and so he explains what such promises 
are worth. 

Of course I don't know what Hartington promises.' But 

' On May 14th, a meeting summoned by Lord Hartington met at Devon- 
shire House, at which Mr. Chamberlain was present. It was calculated at 
this meeting that the "dissenting Liberals" would amount to something over 
one hundred. The important point of the meeting was that Mr. Chamberlain 
and Lord Hartington agreed, for the time, to act together and to vote against 
the Second Reading. 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 345 

does he love you? No. The Whigs are all running about 
boasting how they have you in their toils. 

You may believe me or not, but I really do want to see a way 
to a reconciliation, because I want you to be our leader. A 
reconciliation is still possible on the basis of withdrawing the 
Bill after reading it a second time. To withdraw it before would 
be too much humble pie, and Mr. Gladstone sees — and no doubt 
3'-ou do — that this would ruin him. Moreover, the man has 
some feeling in the matter. 

Supposing that you were to announce on Thursday that the 
Government must withdraw after Second Reading. If Mr. 
Gladstone was to do this, afterwards, he would be knocking under 
completely, and yet almost all the Radicals (except Illingworth 
and Co.) would endorse your suggestion. 

By autumn many things may happen. Mr. Gladstone 
would have brought in a Bill, he would have withdrawn it on 
your demand, and you may depend on it, he never would bring 
in one again in the same shape, but one satisfactory to Radicals 
and unsatisfactory to Whigs and Conservatives. 

This therefore seems to me far better than discussing conces- 
sions, whilst from your own standpoint I emphatically say that 
it is better for you than to go to the country against Mr. Glad- 
stone, against what is called the party, and with such a lot as 
Salisbury and the Whigs, who regard you as the devil incarnate. 
Let the latter gravitate to the Tories. 

There is also this : sentiment is a factor in politics. The notion 
that you are in any way acting ungenerously to Mr. Gladstone 
renders, or will render, the Radicals rabid against you, and after 
all they are the only persons who agree with you in politics, or 
who have any real idea of being your party. 

I write this for your private eye. I shall not say to any one 
that I have written to you. 

If, however, you hold to the idea of the Second Reading 
and the withdrawal, I would work in that direction. — Yours 
truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

P. 5. — Your Ulster fervour does not wash. They are utter 
humbugs, these worthy Orangemen. 



346 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

40 Prince's Gardens, S. W., May 17, 1886. 

My dear Labouchere, — I have never doubted your sincere 
desire to bring about an arrangement. I do not intend to make 
any allusion in public to the negotiations. I blame no one for 
their failure — there were misunderstandings on both sides. But 
I cannot conceive how Mr. Gladstone could have supposed that 
the terms of his speech were calculated to meet the objections 
taken. As regards the present situation I am pledged now to vote 
against the Second Reading, and I must do so, whatever may be 
said as to subsequent withdrawal. 

Our friends feel — and I think they are right — that they cannot 
treat a vote for Second Reading of a Bill as though it were only 
an abstract resolution. 

I admit the truth of nearly all that you say as to the pros- 
pects of the party. No man can foretell the results of the General 
Election, but I expect with you that the Tories will gain. I think 
they will gain chiefly at the expense of the supporters of the Bill, 
but in this I may be mistaken. 

I cannot struggle against the torrent of lies and slanders 
directed against my personal action. I can only say that I have 
been, I believe, more anxious for reconciliation that any one of my 
followers or present allies. I have not to my knowledge said a 
single bitter word about Mr. Gladstone, or expressed either in 
private or in public anything but respect for him and belief in 
his absolute sincerity. Yet in spite of this the supporters of the 
Government are more bitter against me than against any one 
else. 

For the present I shall maintain the same reserve, and shall 
not attempt reprisals ; but if the discussion goes on much longer 
on the same terms I suppose I shall have to defend myself and 
to say what I think of some of those gentlemen who, having 
swallowed their own principles and professions, are indignant 
with me because my digestion is less accommodating. 

I have an enormous correspondence, some of it hostile, but 
most of it friendly. The breach in the party is widening, and in 
a short time it will be beyond repair. 

All I can say is that I have done all in my power to heal it — 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 347 

short of giving up my conscientious convictions and assenting 

to measures which I beHeve are totally wrong. I have not the 

least feeling against Mr. Gladstone ; he is sincere in all that he is 

doing — but I cannot think favourably of many of those who are 

loud in his support, but who to my certain knowledge are as 

much opposed to his Bills in their hearts as I am myself. — Yours 

very truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

P. S. — Salisbury's speech is as bad as anything can be. ^ 
Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

Truth Buildings, Carteret Street, 
Queen Anne's Gate, S. W. 

My dear Chamberlain, — Herschell and one or two others 
were to meet (or possibly have met) to-day to decide upon what 
proposals were to be submitted to you. But I will let them have 
your letter. If the G. O. M. loses his Bill, it will be from not 
having been able to be clear for five minutes in his seventy-seven 
years, — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

Tuesday — or rather Wednesday Morning, May 25, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I am pretty certain that unless 
wiser counsels prevail, Mr. Gladstone will not consent to with- 
draw the Clause. Childers, who has been doing all that he can 
to induce him to do so, finds that the Cabinet (so far as they 
have an opinion) are against it, and Mr. Gladstone strongly so. 
Morley vows that he would rather die, and that sort of thing. 
I cannot find that they have any valid reason for this, but so 
it is. 

Mr. Gladstone will, I think, in as plain words as possible (if 
he can be plain for a few minutes) , fall back upon the programme 

^ Mr. Chamberlain was probably referring to Lord Salisbury's speech of 
May 15th, in which he suggested that the Irish belonged to the races incapable 
of self-government, such as — the Hottentots! 



348 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

that we were negotiating, and say that he will so modify the Bill 
in Committee that it will give the Irish Representation here on 
Imperial matters, and he seems to have a notion floating in his 
brain of announcing that if the Second Reading be passed he 
will either withdraw or defer the Bill. 

The notion seems to be that the Liberal opponents may be 
put down at 100, and that this will reduce them to 70; these 
calculations, however, are evidently upon exceedingly vague 
data. 

It is pretty clear that a number of the opponents do not like 
the idea of a dissolution, and that they are very anxious for an 
arrangement. It is therefore quite possible that they will come 
in upon some such basis. 

Do pray think the matter over, and consider whether it is 
not worth your while taking these assurances as a concession to 
you. Of course it is not certain that they will be definite, but 
you might insist upon their being made definite in the House of 
Commons. 

I think that it is a proof of astounding weakness not giving 
up the Clause. These people can never make up their minds 
either to fight or to make peace. The G. O. M. has a natural 
love of shilly-shally, and those around him encourage him in this 
for their own purposes. My own belief is that they don't want 
you to vote for the Bill, and that you would spoil their game 
if you did. The G. O. M. cannot last, and if only you would 
rally you would be certain of the mantle, whereas with Goschen 
and Hartington you never possibly can get on. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, The Derby Day, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — If you can agree to anything less 
than the excision of the twenty-fourth Clause, and consider that 
it would be useful to let Mr. Gladstone know this, could you 
write me a letter stating your views? This I could let Mr. 
Gladstone have to-morrow morning, as a letter to me and not 
intended for him to see, with the understanding that it is for his 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 349 

private reading and not for his Cabinet. It might probably- 
lead him to go farther than he otherwise would in his concessions. 
He, no doubt, wants to pass his Bill, and although he believes 
that he would sweep the country at an election, he must in his 
calmer moments know that he may possibly not do so. But I am 
certain that there are men in the Cabinet who, whilst pretending 
to be in favour of conciliation, are doing all they can to pre- 
vent it' — some arbitrarily, and some because their private am- 
bitions point to your being forced into a position of antagonism. 
I do not think that Mr. Gladstone will be likely to change in 
regard to the Cabinet decision respecting the twenty-fourth 
Clause. The point therefore is to find some other mode of 
ensuring what is practically a surrender in respect to Irish repre- 
sentation here. The excision of the Clause is the simple and 
direct method, but when did our venerable friend ever take the 
direct method? If, however, he clearly, distinctly, and definitely 
pledges himself to introduce a Clause having the same object as 
the excision, and to incorporate it in his Bill, the result is the same, 
although the road may not be quite as straight. He might easily 
be parried in the House by your saying, "I understand the Prime 
Minister to, etc., etc.," and then you might fairly say that you 
have got precisely what you want, and thus bear off the honours 
of war. You have never publicly insisted upon the particular 
mode by means of which the desired end is to be attained. — 
Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, Wednesday. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I have just got your note and 
have privately let Mr. Gladstone know your position. I have 
suggested this, that if he intends to insert a Clause giving the 
Irish Representation, he must necessarily withdraw the twenty- 
fourth, and that consequently he can use the word "withdraw," 
which might get over the difficulty. But whether he will do 
this, I don't know. Except that the Cabinet would not hear of 
the withdrawal, and leaving matters as they are in regard to 



350 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

Irish Representation until future Legislation, they seem to have 
left him a free hand. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

Thursday, May 26, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — There is no doubt about the pro- 
rogation. It was settled last night, much against the wishes of 
some, who regard it as too much of a surrender. I have been 
urging that Fowler, who is to speak after some Conservative who 
has got the adjournment for to-morrow, should translate from 
one hour of Gladstonese into five minutes of English. The 
absurd objection to this is (as yet) that he is not in the 
Cabinet. My impression is that most of the Radicals will 
return to the fold. They don't like a dissolution, with a Liberal 
enemy against them. This is all very well for you, but the fry 
will go to the wall in these localities. Some of the Scotch have 
also come in. 

After all, if Mr. Gladstone withdraws his Bill and agrees to 
bring in another, in which Clause twenty-four is to be reversed — 
the exclusion being inclusion — he does more than withdraw the 
clause, and the prorogation was really only decided on by Mr. 
Gladstone in order to give you full satisfaction. Caine, I hear, 
says that he never will vote for the Bill — probably not, consider- 
ing the influence of the Cavendishes at Barrow. If he did, he 
would not get in. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

May 29, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — I think that I have arranged for 
a written antidote which will appear on Monday to the ''responsi- 
ble frivolity" of our loquacious and indiscreet friend. I am not 
yet quite sure whether it is arranged, so please don't say anything 
to any one about it, or, if it appears, say that I had anything to 
do with it. He insists that he said in the House exactly what 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 351 

he had said at the Meeting. ' Reading his speech, it is difficult to 
pin him to any particular passage — the only thing that can be 
said is that he used phrases, which might cover a wider principle 
than "a domestic Legislature for Irish affairs." I was asked to 
put on paper my objections to the speech. 

I took these points: (i.) that he made a vote cover a general 
recognition of the Bill; (2.) that he studiously limited all " recon- 
struction" to a particular point ; (3.) that he implied, and almost 
stated that the Bill was to be introduced, and made no clear offer 
to consider the whole subject of the details which were to give 
effect to the principle of his domestic Legislature principle, and 
did not say that he would consider any suggestions offered to 
him by leading persons in the Liberal Party. 

These are, in point of fact, your criticisms, not mine. 

He was astounded at any one not finding all this in his speech, 
but I said that, surprising as this might be, no one friend or foe 
had found anything of the kind. 

It seems to me that the real object of all should be to tide 
over the present conjunction, and to leave everything "without 
prejudice ' ' for this autumn Session. The public do not know the 
object of their adoration as we do. He is still their fetish, and 
they regard any doubt of his divine character as sacrilege. 

I should have thought that Henry James' idea of not voting 
would have suited both you and Hartington. It certainly is the 
most logical outcome of the position. He says that the Bill is a 
mere declaration of principle. You say that it may be more. 
He offers to withdraw the Bill, after the principle has been ratified 
by a vote. You cannot quite believe him in anything beyond 
that the Bill will be withdrawn. This being so, if all of you were 
to agree to leave him and his principle to find their level in the 
House of Commons — to say that you are for a domestic legisla- 
ture, and therefore cannot vote for the Bill, but that you are not 
for more, and therefore that you cannot vote for a Bill which 
may involve more. I think that this would put you quite right 
with the Radicals, and leave you a free hand, although it may 

• On May 27th Mr. Gladstone held a meeting of Liberals at the Foreign 
Office, when, in a conciliatory speech, he declared that the Government desired, 
by a vote on the Second Reading, no more than to establish the principle 
of a measure, which was to give Home Rule to Ireland. 



352 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

be doubtful whether the Whigs, who go against principle and 
details, would be quite so wise to accept this solution. 

If, however, the Whigs do vote, and if you and your people 
abstain, it is not quite certain that we should carry the Bill; in 
which case the outcry would be against the abstainers, and they 
would be cursed for precipitating a dissolution against the idol. 

According to the Whips, Saunders has again got salvation. 
Half of these people are like women, who are pleased to keep up 
the "I will" and "I won't" as long as possible in order to be 
counted. Generally this ends in "I will." 

Akers Douglas told the Whips last night that the debate was 
not to end before Thursday; they could not quite make out 
whether this was official or not. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, June 5, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — At the desire of a large number of 
Radical Members of Parliament, I write to make an appeal to 
you with regard to your attitude upon the Government for 
Ireland Bill. They are all of them amongst your warmest ad- 
mirers, and they have always looked to you as the leader of their 
phase of political thought. They advocated your " unauthorised 
programme" at the last General Election, and they have per- 
sistently defended you against the attacks and aspersions of all 
who have denounced you and your views upon political or social 
issues. With much that you have said upon the Irish Bill they 
agree, and they think that they have a right to ask you to give 
a fair consideration to any request that they may make to you 
in order to maintain the union which they are anxious should 
exist between you and them. In your speech upon the Second 
Reading of the Bill, you said that you were in favour of the 
principles of a separate domestic Legislature for Ireland, with 
due reservations, but that you did not consider that Mr. Glad- 
stone had made it sufficiently clear that voting for the Bill would 
mean nothing but a recognition of this principle, and would 
leave its supporters absolute independence of judgment with 
regard to the new Bill that he might introduce in an autumn 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 353 

Session. I think that he has met this objection in his letter to 
Mr. Moulton that has been pubHshed to-day. We think, there- 
fore, that perhaps you could not respond to our wishes, and either 
vote for the Bill or — if you could not go so far as this — abstain 
from voting. The issue of the division on Monday is, we believe, 
entirely in your hands. Should the Bill be lost there will be a 
General Election at once, which will disturb the trade and com- 
merce of the country; and it will take place at a time which, as 
no doubt you are aware, will be the worst period of the year for 
the Radicals, owing to the Registration Laws now in force. It is 
impossible to shut our eyes to the fact that a General Election, 
without you on our side, may lead to a Whig-Tory, or Tory- 
Whig Government, which would relegate to the dim and distant 
future all those measures which you and we so ardently desire 
may become law. Under these circumstances is it too much for 
us to ask you to make an effort to avert all these contingencies? 
When Achilles returned to his tent, the Greeks were defeated. 
What would it have been had Achilles lent the weight of his arm 
to the Trojans? I fully recognise how conciliatory your attitude 
has been, and how anxiously you have sought to see your way 
from disruption during all the discussions which I have had with 
you. I still cannot help hoping that, in view of the distant assur- 
ances of Mr. Gladstone in his letter to Mr. Moulton, and in view 
of the wishes of so many of your warmest admirers in the House 
of Commons, you will see your way to defer to the request which, 
through me, they make to you. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

June 5, 1886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — This letter is really written at the 
desire of a lot of Radicals. They were pestering me all last 
evening. 

The position is this: 316 pledged for, 136 pledged against, 
leaving out the Speaker and those absent; there are about 26 
not absolutely pledged on either side, or inclined to reconsider 
their pledges. We have got some to promise to abstain or to 
follow the Maker Pease in voting for the Bill. But we have not 
yet enough, and so far as I can see at present the Bill is lost. 
23 



354 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

The issue therefore really depends upon you. Surely it 
would be well to stave it off by saving the Bill. Much may 
happen before autumn. We may lose the G. O. M., who has 
a very collapsed look. Anyhow, if he does bring in his Bill again, 
it will never pass in the autumn, but will be lost by a large majority. 

I am really writing to you without speaking to any one of the 
Government, nor at' the suggestion of the Government. You 
might yield very gracefully to the Radicals, and I make the 
letter an appeal forma pauperis. Were you to do so, you would 
become the most popular man in England, with all who are 
honestly your political adherents, for I need not say that the 
Whigs and Tories are not likely to adore you for long. It would 
be delicious to spring a correspondence on the Government and 
the public on Monday morning. I am going down to Twicken- 
ham this afternoon until Monday. If you think it any good I 
would meet you anywhere before going. 

This occurred to me yesterday. Mr. Gladstone might ad- 
journ the debate till some day in the autumn Session, and then 
carry it on, after stating all the changes he will make in his Bill. 
The difficulty of this is, that he vows that it is against all Parlia- 
mentary rule to legislate after the Approbation Act. I don't 
know whether he could meet this by votes on account. Then, 
too, is it certain that he would have a majority? If however you 
approve of this, I would again suggest it. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

40 Prince's Gardens, S. W., June 5, 1886. 

My DEAft Labouchere, — I thank you for your letter of this 
morning, and sincerely appreciate the spirit in which it is written, 
but especially your recognition that my attitude has been con- 
ciliatory throughout these unfortunate differences, and that I 
have been at all times most anxious to prevent the disruption 
of the Liberal Party. 

You do not give me the names of the friends on whose behalf 
you write, and who now urge me to vote in favour of the Second 
Reading of a Bill with many of my objections to which they 
themselves agree. I do not know therefore whether or no they 



i886] THE SPLIT IN THE LIBERAL PARTY 355 

have already pledged themselves to take the course which you 
urge upon me, but I assume that this is the case as I have not 
myself received any communications in the same sense from any 
of those who have declared their inability to support the Second 
Reading. 

I am unable to accept your reference to my speech as quite 
accurate, but I adhere on every point to the words of the original 
report. I quite admit that Mr. Gladstone has given ample 
assurance that he will not hold any member who may vote for 
the Second Reading as committed thereby to a similar vote for 
the Second Reading of the Bill when reintroduced in October, 
but the question still remains whether such members will not be 
obliged to take this course in order to preserve their own logical 
consistency. 

Up to the present time Mr. Gladstone has given no indica- 
tion whatever that the Bill to be presented in October will be 
materially different from the Bill now before the House. On the 
contrary, he has distinctly stated that he will not depart from 
the main outlines of the present measure. It is, however, to 
the main outlines of the present Bill that the opposition of my 
friends and myself has been directed, and it appears to me that 
we should be stultifying ourselves if we were to abstain at the 
last moment from giving effect to our conscientious convictions. 
We are ready to accept as a principle the expediency of establish- 
ing some kind of legislative authority in Ireland subject to the 
conditions which Mr. Gladstone himself has laid down, but we 
honestly believe that none of these conditions are satisfactorily 
secured by the plan which has been placed before us. I share 
your apprehension as to the General Election at the present 
time; but the responsibility for this must, I think, rest with 
those who will have brought in and forced to a division a Bill 
which, in the words of Mr. Bright, "not twenty members 
outside the Irish party would support if Mr. Gladstone's great 
authority were withdrawn from it." — I am, yours very truly, 

J. Chamberlain. 

P. S. — As I understand that many Radical members are 
cognisant of your letter, I propose to send it together with my 
reply for publication in the Times. 



356 HENRY LABOUCHERE [1886 

Mr. Ldbouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

10 Queen Anne's Gate, June 5, i886. 

My dear Chamberlain, — Yes, I thought of pubHshing 
if you were to agree — but if not — I rather think it would not 
conduce to the Second Reading. It might even if you said that 
you would advise others to abstain, or something of that sort. 
The G. 0. M. will die rather than withdraw his Bill, but he might 
perhaps be induced to adjourn the debate until autumn, if you 
were to suggest this. I am off to Twickenham, as I have Palto 
and Ellen Terry coming down, who (thank God) probably have 
never heard of the infernal Bill. Randolph is, I believe, coming, 
but I suppose it is no use asking you to join such frivolous society. 
My conviction is that the Radicals are damned for years if we 
are defeated to-morrow. 

If you can write anything comforting, and send it here to- 
morrow morning, I will tell some one here to bring it down at 
once to Pope's Villa. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 



CHAPTER XIII 

SOME CONSEQUENCES OF BALFOUR'S COERCION 

POLICY 

WHEN Mr. Gladstone's Government was defeated on 
June 9 by 341 votes to 311, the Prime Minister 
immediately dissolved Pariiament, and the General Election 
was over before the end of July, the Unionist majority being 
118. Mr. Gladstone resigned on July 12, before the final 
returns were sent in, and, when Parliament met again in 
August, Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister, Sir Michael 
Hicks-Beach, Chief Secretary for Ireland, and Lord London- 
derry, Viceroy. The second great Home Rule battle had 
been fought and lost. 

Of course Irish affairs immediately occupied Parliament, 
but on September 21 the Land Bill, introduced by Parnell, 
and upon which, he warned the House, the peace of Ire- 
land depended, was rejected by a majority of 95 votes. 
On October 23, the Plan of Campaign was launched and 
furiously denounced by the Conservatives in the House of 
Commons and on every platform throughout the country. 
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach resigned the Chief Secretaryship 
on account of his failing eyesight, and was replaced by Mr. 
Balfour. The first Parliament that met in 1887 was given 
notice of two measures for Ireland — a Coercion Bill to be 
introduced in the House of Commons and a Land Bill in the 
House of Lords. The Coercion Bill was the most stringent 
of its kind ever introduced. It abridged and destroyed the 

357 



358 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

constitutional liberties of the people of Ireland and created 
new offences. It withdrew the protection of juries, and gave 
full powers to resident magistrates of dealing with cases of 
intimidation and of holding public meetings against the will 
of the executive. It was proposed, moreover, that the 
measure should be a permanent one, and not restricted to 
one or a limited number of years. * 

Two extraordinary events occurred in that year, in both 
of which Mr. Labouchere played an important part. They 
both had their indirect origin in the coercive measures which 
Mr. Balfour succeeded in passing through the House. The 
first took place during the spring, when the Times, in order to 
strengthen the hands of the Government, in their remorseless 
warfare on Irish liberties, published, during the course of a 
series of articles called "Parnellism and Crime," the fac- 
simile of a letter supposed to have been written by Mr. Par- 
nell to Mr. Patrick Egan in 1882, referring brutally to the 
Phoenix Park murders. The letter was contained in the 
fourth article of the series. The reader will easily perceive 
from the following short extracts the spirit in which these 
articles were conceived: "Be the ultimate goal of these men 
(the Parnellites) what it will, they are content to march 
towards it in company with murderers. Murderers provide 
their funds, murderers share their inmost counsels, murderers 
have gone forth from the League^ offices to set their bloody 
work afoot, and have presently returned to consult the 
'constitutional leaders' on the advancement of the cause," 
occurred in the first article. The third article declared that 
"even now" the Parnellite conspiracy was controlled by 
dynamiters and assassins, and proceeded thus: "We have 
seen how the infernal fabric arose 'like an exhalation' to 
the sound of murderous oratory; how assassins guarded it 

^ Lord Eversley, Gladstone and Ireland. 

' The Land League founded by Parnell in 1879 for the purpose of bringing 
about a reduction of rack rents, and facilitating the creation of a peasant 
proprietary. Egan was the treasurer of the Land League. 



BALFOUR'S COERCION POLICY 359 

about, and enforced the high decrees of the secret conclave 
within by the ballot and the knife. Of that conclave to-day, 
three sit in the Imperial Parliament, four are fugitives from 
the law." The first series of the articles finished up with 
this appeal: "Men of England! These are the foul and 
dastardly methods by which the National League and the 
Parnellites have established their terrorism over a large 
portion of Ireland. Will you refuse the Government the 
powers which will enable these cowardly miscreants to be 
punished, and which will give protection to the millions of 
honest and loyal people in Ireland?" 

It is very certain that all Liberal Unionists, and even a few 
of the more educated Tory statesmen, realised that the arti- 
cles were merely theatrical appeals to the contracted imagi- 
nations of those armchair politicians, whose ways of in- 
fluencing voters in rural districts were all powerful, but 
it was not to be expected that the man in the street could 
understand them as such. On him they made a profound 
impression. 

The first article appeared on March 7, the second on the 
14th, and the third on the i8th. On the 22nd Mr. Balfour 
gave notice of his Coercion Bill. "Parnellism and Crime" 
had prepared the way for him. The Bill was read for the 
first time in the beginning of April, and on the last day of the 
debate on the Second Reading, April 18, the Times published 
its piece de resistance — ^what has since become known as 
" the facsimile letter. " It ran as follows : 

15/5/82. 

Dear Sir, — I am not surprised at your friend's anger, but he 
and you should know that to denounce the murders was the only 
course open to us. To do that promptly was plainly our best 
policy. But you can tell him and all others concerned that 
though I regret the accident of Lord F. Cavendish's death, I 
cannot refuse to admit that Burke got no more than his deserts. 
You are at liberty to show him this, and others whom you can 



360 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

trust also, but let not my address be known. He can write to 
House of Commons. — Yours very truly, 

Chas. S. Parnell. 

I have before me the photograph of the facsimile letter, 
used in the Parnell Commission, and also the letters received 
by Mr. Labouchere at different times from the Irish leader, 
and it seems incredible, on comparing the general style and 
caligraphy of the former with the latter, how the Times 
agents and Mr. Soames could have been deceived for one 
moment ; but I must not anticipate in this place the verdict 
of the Commission on the forgery, in the obtaining of which 
Mr. Labouchere played such a characteristic part. The 
whole of England was indignant when the issue of the Times 
containing the facsimile letter appeared on their breakfast 
tables, and even comparatively tender-hearted persons 
began to think seriously that no treatment of Ireland by the 
English could be savage enough to avenge the cold-hearted, 
calculating cruelty of Parnell. 

Mr. Balfour's Coercion Bill had not, however, yet become 
law, and the Times continued its popular articles, which were 
greedily devoured by the public, the body of the second and 
third series consisting for the most part of an accumulation 
of evidence to prove that, in the year of the Land League, 
the conspirators had succeeded in getting the American 
Clan na Gael and the Irish Parliamentary party into line. 
It did its work so well that, by the 8th of July, when the 
Coercion Bill passed its Third Reading, under which, sub- 
sequently, fully one-third of the Nationalist members 
charged in its columns were put into prison, there were very 
few English people outside the Radical faction who did not 
think that Ireland had got no more than her deserts. 

It was, in the denouement of the series of events, following 
upon the publication of Mr. Pamell's supposed letter, that 
Mr. Labouchere played such an important part, and, as it 
was nearly two years before the mystery was completely 



BALFOUR'S COERCION POLICY 361 

unravelled, the story of the forged letter must now be left, 
so as to take up in chronological order the second event of 
1887 in which Mr. Labouchere was vitally concerned. 

Mr. Labouchere kept himself well in touch with what was 
going on in Ireland, and the following detailed letter that 
he received from Mr. T. M. Healy towards the end of 1886, 
gave him a vivid picture of the state of things there during 
the first half year of the Conservative Government, and 
assisted him much in the line of policy he consistently fol- 
lowed then and throughout the ensuing years : 

The country is really perfectly quiet, and the misfortune is 
that the Tories are reaping the benefit of Gladstone's policy, and 
will, of course, claim the credit for their "resolute Government." 
Moreover, they are putting all kinds of pressure on the landlords 
to grant abatements. Buller is Soudanizing Kerry k la Gordon, 
and giving the slave-drivers no quarter, so that with the stoppage 
of evictions there, moonlighting is coming to an end and the 
people believe that Buller won't let them be turned out of their 
cabins. He has a good man with him as Sec. — Col. Turner — who 
was aide to Aberdeen during the late Viceroyalty. Turner is a 
staunch Radical and Home Ruler who sympathizes with the poor, 
and we know very well that the brake has been put on against the 
local Bimbashis. They are cursing Buller heartily, and yester- 
day he had to issue an official contradiction of the undoubted 
truth that he is obstructing evictions by refusing police. There 
are more ways of killing a dog than choking him with butter. 
How they would storm against Liberals if any such officer were 
sent to Kerry to override the law, and how they denounced Morley 
for exercising the dispensing power, because of a few sympathetic 
sentences. What I am afraid of in all this is that the tenants 
nowhere are getting a clear receipt, and that they will afterwards 
be pressed for the balances unless there is an Arrears Act. Pro- 
bably the Tories meditate muddling away the rest of the Church 
surplus in benefactions to the landlords to recompense their 
benevolence. Of course only the September rents are due yet, 
and September and March are much less frequent gale months 
with us than November and May. The November rents will be 



362 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

soon demanded, and then we shall really know what the land- 
lords will do. I think they will surrender, for if they don't 
they won't be paid. Every one of them is sick of the fight. Their 
retainers and bailiffs who made a profit out of evictions, and the 
attorneys who promoted them for the costs, have not been paid 
for a long time as they used long ago, and like a stranded vessel 
on the rocks it is only a question of the fierceness of the gale how 
soon the entire system will go to pieces. They were in much 
better blood for fighting in '8i and what have those of them got 
who stood out? Desolate farms that no one will touch, while the 
sight of emergency occupants no longer terrifies the tenants, who 
know that they are costing the master three times the rent and 
that their labours are as profitless as a locust's. These fellows 
are the riffraff of the towns who idle away their time in the next 
public-house or play cards with the police sent to protect them. 
They burn everything that will light for firing, and their occupa- 
tion of the premises is about as husbandman-like as that of a party 
of Uhlans. Such is the prospect for the gentry who refuse abate- 
ments, and as they know the people have not got money, I 
believe they will make a virtue of necessity. Then the Govern- 
ment are known to be against them, and they cannot appeal from 
their own friends to the Liberals, so what are they to do? They 
distrust Churchill completely, and believe he is capable of any- 
thing. If, however, they hold out we shall have warm work. 
I have refrained from addressing agrarian meetings so far, though 
Dillon and O'Brien have gone on the warpath, because it is not 
clear to me yet what is the best line to take, and besides I think 
Parnell should give the note, so that nobody may get above 
concert pitch. What Parnell's views are I don't know, and he 
is the man on the horse. The consciousness of the people that 
they have Gladstone on their side would in any case, I think, take 
all the uglier sting out of the agitation, now that they feel a 
settlement to be only a matter of time. It is very hard for any one 
to advise them when the responsibility is directly on Parnell, 
but if he intervened popular opinion would blaze like a prairie 
fire. 

Thanks for your enquiry about my return to the House, 
There are now three Irish vacancies, but I don't feel anxious to 
go in now that I am out of the hurly-burly. It is a heavy mone- 



BALFOUR'S COERCION POLICY 363 

tary loss to me, still, if it seemed my duty, I would stand again. 
O 'Brien hates Parliament and vows he won't go back, but if he 
would consent so should I, The English have no idea what a 
beastly nuisance it is, giving up your work in order to live in 
London, and then to be blackguarded as hirelings and assassins 
for our pains. I cannot think that there is much chance of turn- 
ing out Randolph for a long time to come. Even if we could win 
over Chamberlain, he has few followers, and Hartington could still 
give the Ministry a majority. I think the pair of them are trying 
to kill Gladstone, and that this is quite as much a purpose of their 
policy as to prevent Home Rule. I feel sure that no modifications 
of the late Bill that we could agree to would induce either of them 
to come over. 

In a Parliamentary sense Mr. Gladstone is a better life than 
Hartington, as when the Duke of Devonshire dies his influence 
will abate, and his followers in the House cannot be so well kept 
together. Joseph and he hate each other too much to agree on 
anything else than disagreeing with Gladstone, so that I cannot 
see any land ahead just yet. I fear there is nothing for it but 
to trust to the chapter of accidents. Cloture cannot, if carried, 
do us much harm. If used to promote coercion then you will 
have outrages and, for aught I know, dynamite once more in the 
ascendant, so that while they may get rid of the pain in one part 
of the system the disease will break out somewhere else. Every 
one here wants peace, and the wisdom of Gladstone's policy 
is more manifest to me every day. There is an entire change in 
the temper of the people, and it would even take some pretty 
rough Toryism to make them take to their old ways again. 

If the present Government were wise they would take ad- 
vantage of this frame of mind, but there is little prospect of 
their doing so. 

In the monster demonstration which took place in Hyde 
Park, after the reading of the Coercion Bill for the first time, 
Mr. Labouchere had been one of the group of eloquent 
orators, including Mr. Michael Davitt, Mr. Sexton, Mr. 
Hunter, and Professor James Stuart, who, from a long semi- 
circle of pavilions, had led upwards of a quarter million 



364 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

demonstrators, poured out from the Radical Clubs and 
Associations of London, in protest against the tyrannical 
methods contemplated by the Government, A short extract 
from the speech of Mr. Baggallay, made in the House of 
Commons on April 14, gives an interesting little picture of 
Mr. Labouchere on the occasion of the demonstration: 
"I see the member for Northampton in his place," he said; 
"I am glad to see him back again after his short holiday, 
a holiday which I was sorry to see that he himself had cut 
short by unnecessarily making his appearance on a waggon 
in Hyde Park. May I be allowed to tell him that I was in 
Hyde Park also, although I was not in a waggon. I am 
prepared to admit that the crowd there was orderly. It has 
been asserted that there were a great many rowdies present. 
No doubt there were, but, for a Bank hoHday, and for Hyde 
Park on a fine day, I think the congregation assembled there 
was fairly respectable. But, sir, what did they go there for? 
A great many were out for a holiday, but I believe that a 
very large number went there in order to see the leader of the 
Liberal party, or rather the real leader of the Radical party. 
I was asked over and over again, 'Where's Labby?' 
There can be no doubt that the point of attraction was the 
platform at which the member for Northampton presided. 
The language Mr. Labouchere used in reference to this 
Coercion Bill was not perhaps quite so moderate as it might 
have been. He told his audience that the policy of the 
Government was like the ruffianism of Bill Sikes, and he 
added that if the Bill became law he hoped Irishmen would 
resist it." (Mr. Labouchere: "Hear, Hear!") "I do 
not know if Mr. Labouchere is prepared to repeat those words 
in the House — " (Mr. Labouchere: "Most imquestion- 
ably I repeat them.) " ^ And so on. 

The protest had, of course, nothing but a moral value, 
minimised as much as possible by a slashing leading article 
in the Times, followed by a double dose of "Parnellism and 

^Hansard, April 14, 1887, vol. 313. 



BALFOUR'S COERCION POLICY 365 

Crime. " But, in the September of that year, Mr. Labou- 
chere, in company with four other members of Parliament 
(Mr. T. E. ElHs, Mr. Brunner, Mr. Dillon, and Mr. John 
O'Connor), went over to Ireland, in order to address the 
historic meeting at Michelstown. 

Everybody knows the outline of what occurred — ^how the 
police, escorting a Government reporter, tried to force a 
passage through a hostile crowd to the speaker's platform, 
and how they were eventually driven back into their barracks, 
through the windows of which they fired at random, killing 
three men and mortally wounding two others. The meet- 
ing occurred on September 9, and on the 12th the matter was 
discussed during the debate in the House of Commons. 
Mr. Balfour pronounced instant and peremptory judgment, 
although his information on the subject must have been 
obtained with incredible rapidity. ^ He told the House that 
he was of opinion, "looking at the matter in the most impar- 
tial spirit, that the police were in no way to blame, and that 
no responsibility rested upon any one except upon those who 
convened the meeting under circumstances which they knew 
would lead to excitement and might lead to outrage."^ 
Mr. Labouchere, following Sir William Harcourt and Mr. 
Balfour, made a characteristic speech, in the course of which 
he gave an inimitable account of what actually did happen 
at Michelstown. 

"Now, sir," he said, "I was there. I was in a position 
which enabled me to see very clearly what took place. I 
am not a novice in these matters. I have been in a great 
many emeutes on the continent. I have been a reporter in 
some cases, and I have not only been in a position to see, but 
I have also been in the habit of chronicling what I did see. 
. . . We went down, and the train arrived at Fermoy. 
This is about fifteen miles from Michelstown, and when we 
were within a mile of the latter place, we were met by a 

» Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. iii. 
'Hansard, September 12, 1887, vol. 321. 



366 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

procession with flags and trumpets, and a certain crowd 
accompanying it. . . . We entered the town with this 
procession, and pulled up in the market-place. Michelstown 
is a very small provincial town with very wide streets and 
few of them. In the midst of the town there is this market- 
place, which is perhaps as large as Trafalgar Square. The 
market-place slopes, and at the top, is the main street of the 
village, and — I ask the House to remember this — there are 
two police barracks. One is the permanent police station 
. . . and the other a temporary police station, used by the 
police on this occasion, and faces the market-place. When 
we arrived there we got into a brake, which formed one 
part of the procession. This brake was mainly tenanted by 
priests, the Mayors of Cork and Clonmel, and a few other 
gentlemen. Mr. M'Carthy, a parish priest of the neighbour- 
hood, was appointed chairman, and the crowd naturally 
gathered around. Mr. Dillon said to me: 'Let us cut this 
as short as possible: they will send the police and military 
into the town. They will attempt something, and something 
may occur if we go on long. I suggest we say a few words 
and ask the crowd to disperse. ' I at once assented. Dillon 
then got up on the front side of the brake to say a few words, 
and at that time, or perhaps a few minutes before, I saw a 
body of police drawn up in a line in the lower part of the 
market-place. They had a reporter with them, and they 
pushed their way to within a short distance of the platform. 
. . . They could get no further. The people were so tightly 
packed. I will give an instance of this. When we got 
there we got out of our carriage, and we were all going on to 
the brake, which was, I suppose, five yards away. I was 
delayed a moment, and I was delayed at least two moments 
trying to get through these five yards, the people being so 
crowded that it was almost impossible to push through them. 
How then was it possible for the police, three abreast, with- 
out great violence, to push their way through such a dense 
mass as this? Our brake was at the top of the market-place, 



BALFOUR^S COERCION POLICY 367 

the people were all in front. Why on earth did not the 
reporter go to the outside of the meeting, and down the 
other side? He could easily have got in that way, and we 
should have been glad to welcome him there. But the 
police deliberately tried to force their way right in front 
where the people were wedged in as much as possible. I 
then saw these dozen policemen, with the reporter in their 
midst, stop. I supposed then they were satisfied and saw 
they could get no further. Dillon made one or two observa- 
tions, and then the police fell back, and I thought perhaps 
they were going round. Let me observe we did not see the 
Resident Magistrate at all. If the Resident Magistrate had 
shown himself, and said he wanted the reporter to pass, one 
would have let him pass. The difficulty was that the re- 
porter did not come alone, but with this body of police. 
Dillon went on speaking, and the horsemen — not this wonder- 
ful regiment I see mentioned in the Times, but some twenty 
horsemen — closed round outside the meeting in order to 
hear. Suddenly, after the advance guard had fallen back, 
and joined the other police, they (the police) all rushed for- 
ward. I am told they came to where these horsemen were, 
and one of the policemen drew his sword, and wounded one 
of the horses. I believe Mr. Brunner saw this done. Im- 
mediately there was a scrimmage. . . . The poHce 
commenced and continued it. The next thing that happened 
was that the police ran away. Captain Seagrove may have 
been amongst them, but it appears he deserted them on this 
occasion, and went to a neighbouring inn on the right of 
the market-place . . . . The police ran into the barracks. 
. . . Brunner and Ellis got on the brake, and joined the 
Mayor of Cork in urging the people to clear the streets for 
fear of further bloodshed, and I remained on the brake, be- 
cause I was anxious to see what would take place." He 
continued his speech, urging with great ability the futility 
of pursuing in Ireland such tactics, which amounted to 
nothing in the world but the forcing upon a weaker coiintry 



368 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

the tyranny of a stronger. "The Chief Secretary tells us, " 
he continued, "that, by these means, he hopes to create a 
Union between England and Ireland. What sort of a 
Union does he expect to create? Does he expect to create 
a Union of hearts and affections? Does he hope to create 
an affection for the English Government? I am happy to 
see that in Ireland the people are making a wide distinction 
between the people of England and the Government of 
England. They know their troubles are only temporary, 
that a new alliance exists between the democracies of England 
and Ireland, and that the classes will not be able to hold their 
own against such an alliance. I hold that the right hon. 
gentleman (Mr. Balfour) is indirectly responsible for what 
has occurred at Michelstown, and that those who are 
directly responsible are R. M. Seagrove and Inspector 
Brownrigg. I accuse these men of gross and deliberate 
murder."^ 

After Mr. Labouchere sat down, there was really very 
little to be said on the other side. Lord Randolph Churchill, 
however, endeavoured to do his duty by his party, and 
commented thus on Labouchere's speech, craftily criticising 
its style and ignoring its substance: "And then. Sir, we had 
the statement of the member for Northampton, which seems 
to me to resemble in its nature certain newspapers which are 
now current, and, to some extent, popular in the metropolis, 
which convey their news to the public in paragraphs. The 
statement of the hon. gentleman did not seem to me to be 
altogether connected. It was really a series of paragraphs, 
which succeeded each other without much connection as 
far as I could make out. I put aside the statement of the 
hon. member for Northampton, because I have difficulty 
in regarding him as altogether serious in this matter."^ 

It is difficult to see why Lord Randolph Churchill did not 
regard Mr. Labouchere's statement on the subject as serious. 
Had he been commenting on Mr. Balfour's speech on the 

' Hansard, September 12, 1887, vol. 321. ' Ibid. 



BALFOUR'S COERCION POLICY 369 

occasion, one might have understood a certain amount of 
scepticism as to the speaker's good faith. 

In the following February Mr. Labouchere, in a speech 
on Mr. Pamell's amendment in answer to the Address from 
the Throne, referred again to Mr. Balfour's airy dismissal of 
any serious consideration of the Michelstown affray : "What 
the Chief Secretary had stated in the House about the matter 
was absolutely incorrect. He had always thought that the 
right hon. gentleman would be especially careful in matters 
of evidence, for, as a philosopher, he was his (Labouchere's) 
favourite philosopher. He had sat at the feet of that Ga- 
maliel, he had read his Defence of Philosophic Doubt, until 
he had almost doubted of his own existence. Yet, when the 
right hon. gentleman became Irish Chief Secretary, he forgot 
all his philosophy. The reason was that there were exigencies 
required of an Irish Secretary that were not to be found in 
the calm fields of philosophy. It was a melancholy thing 
for a philosopher to be plunged by the exigencies of his 
position into matters like this — to have vile instruments to 
carry out his orders, and to believe them or rather to pretend 
to believe them . . . ."^ 

The note of persiflage contained in all Labouchere's 
speeches on the Michelstown affair may have deceived his 
hearers as to the profoundness of his feelings of indignation, 
but his measured, well-considered utterances in Truth were 
for all who read them a sufficient guarantee of his good faith. 
Immediately after the affray, he wrote thus of the head of the 
constabulary force in Co. Cork: "I came across a person of 
the name of Brownrigg the other day. The ferocity, the 
insolence, the brutality of this man never were exceeded 
and rarely equalled by Cossack or Uhlan in a country occu- 
pied by Russian or German. I strongly recommend him 
for promotion. He is a man after the heart of our Tory 
despots, for he seemed to me to imite in his person every 
characteristic that goes to make up an official ruffian, 

^ Hansard, Febraary 14, 1888, vol. 322. 
34 



370 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

armed with a little brief authority. On this man the 
responsibility of the Michelstown murders rests. He caused 
them, either deliberately, or from stupidity and brutality 
combined. If he has furnished Mr. Balfour with an account 
of what took place there, he adds to his other virtues the 
capacity of being one of the best liars that the world has 
ever produced, for the statement of Mr. Balfour in the 
House of Commons of the Michelstown affair, from ' official 
information,' is one long tissue of deliberate falsehoods."^ 

At the inquest which was held upon the victims, the jury 
returned a verdict of wilful murder against the chief police 
officer and five of his men. Truth pronounced as follows 
upon the inquest: "Immediately after the Michelstown 
meeting I had occasion to call attention to the conduct of 
Brownrigg, the chief of the constabulary there. This 
ruffian has given evidence, and his evidence is one long tissue 
of lies, so impudent that Mr. Irwin, the District Police 
Inspector, has borne testimony against him. When Mr. 
Irwin stated what the nature of his evidence must be, Brown- 
rigg, it would appear, called his men together and tried to 
drill them into perjury, in order to obtain confirmation of 
his mendacity. I am not surprised at anything which this 
man may do, for I found him vain, irascible, insolent, and 
muddleheaded beyond all conception." 

Mr. Labouchere's article, called "The Michelstown Mur- 
ders, " giving in more detail than he had been able to do in 
the House, the real facts of the affray, is a masterpiece of 
judicial summing up. It is too long to quote in full, but the 
following extract will show how close was his reasoning, and 
how unanswerable his argimients : 

Three men were killed, and two were wounded. Two of the 
men killed received each two bullets. This proves two things: 
I. That the police deliberately aimed. 2. That there could not 
have been a crowd. Never yet was a crowd fired into, and, of 

'' Truth, September 15, 1887. 



BALFOUR'S COERCION POLICY 371 

the three men killed by the discharge, two each be struck twice. 
Any one can see that this is mathematically so improbable as to 
be impossible. 

Station No. i is a house with an iron door, and iron shutters 
to the windows. Even if it had been attacked, an unarmed crowd 
could not have got into it; all the more as there were military 
within call ready to act, and Captain Seagrove was not in the 
station, and consequently could have at once called up the 
soldiers. It is admitted that there are 160 panes of glass in 
the windows, and that only six of these panes were broken 
by stones. The police therefore were not in dangei of their lives, 
nor in any danger. ^ 

The verdict of the inquest was afterwards quashed (Feb, 
10, 1888) in the Queen's Bench on the ground that the 
coroner had perpetrated certain irregularities of form, and, 
as Lord Morley remarks, "the slaughter of the three men was 
finally left just as if it had been the slaughter of three dogs." 
No other incident of Irish administration stirred deeper 
feelings of disgust in Ireland, or of misgiving and indignation 
in England.^ Meanwhile the Times articles "Parnellism 
and Crime" seemed to have been forgotten, except by Mr. 
Labouchere, who had in Truth chaffingly suggested to the 
Times the appointment of Mr. Brownrigg to write a few 
instalments of the sensational serial pamphlet. The poison, 
however, had worked, and goodwill towards Ireland had 
nearly died in English breasts. Pamell had declared in the 
House of Commons on the day of its publication that the 
facsimile letter was a clumsy fabrication. "Politics are 
come to a pretty pass," he said, "in this country when a 
leader of a party of eighty-six members has to stand up at 
ten minutes past one in the House of Commons in order to 
defend himself from an anonymous fabrication such as that 
which is contained in the Times of this morning. " ^ 

^ Truth, September 22, 1887. 

* Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. iii. 

i Hansard, April 18, 1887, vol. 313. 



372 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

Nobody except his Radical friends believed him, and the 
affair would probably have sirnk into oblivion if a former 
member of the party, a Mr. F. H. O'Donnell, had not, after 
mature reflection, conceived that he had been libelled in 
the famous articles. In the summer of 1888 he prosecuted 
the Times for damages, and lost his case, for, as a matter of 
fact, Mr. O'Donnell had not been mentioned in the articles, 
and it almost appeared that something like a guilty con- 
science had prompted him to bring the action. But the 
prosecuting counsel's method of presenting the case not only 
compelled Sir Richard Webster to reproduce and exhaustively 
comment upon the "Pamellism and Crime" articles, but 
furnished him with the opportunity of startling London and 
the world with a long series of other letters, some of them 
more damning even than the facsimile letter, five purporting 
to be from Pat. Egan, the former treasurer of the Land 
League, addressed to various agitators and felons including 
James Carey, the informer, and three supposed to be from 
Pamell. It is only necessary to this narrative to quote one 
which was read out on July 4, 1888, by the Attorney-General 
in his address to the jury. It ran as follows : 

9/1/82. 

Dear E., — What are these fellows waiting for? This inaction 
is inexcusable, our best men are in prison and nothing is being 
done. Let there be an end of this hesitancy. Prompt action is 
called for. You undertook to make it hot for old Forster and Co. 
Let us have some evidence of your power to do so. My health 
is good, thanks. — Yours very truly, 

Chas. S. Parnell. 

"Dear E." meant Patrick Egan. In January, four 
months before the Phoenix Park murders, Mr. Parnell was 
in Kilmainham Prison. Well might the Attorney-General 
say, as he solemnly read out the letter in Court: "If it 
was signed by Mr. Parnell, I need not comment upon it." 



BALFOUR'S COERCION POLICY 373 

He also made the announcement that the "facsimile letter, " 
as the first one published in the Times has always been called, 
as well as the ones he had produced in Court that day, had 
been for some time in the possession of the Times. Pre- 
sumably the Times had kept them in the hopes that the 
Irish leaders would sooner or later bring an action for libel 
against the paper, when they would triumphantly have 
produced the letters and so confounded the whole party. 
As it turned out, their production at that moment rather 
resembled the killing of a fly with a sledge-hammer, for Mr. 
O'Donnell's case was one of such palpable insignificance. 
An important reason may be mentioned here, for explaining 
what may seem to be an extraordinary lack of initiative on 
Mr. Parnell's part. He had not been willing to prosecute 
the Times because he was firmly convinced that Captain 
O'Shea had been concerned in the production of the letters, 
and, to add to his unwillingness, his friends in England had 
pointed out to him the immense improbability of a jury of 
twelve Middlesex men, being, at that moment, sufficiently 
without racial prejudice, to pronounce a verdict in his 
favour. After the Attorney-General's declaration that the 
Times would retract nothing, and the implied challenge in 
his admission that, if false, no grosser libels were ever 
written, Mr. Parnell took action. On the day of the delivery 
of the verdict in the case of O 'Donnell v. Walter, he formally 
denied the authenticity of the letters, and asked for a Select 
Committee of the House to enquire into the matter. His 
request was refused, but finally it was suggested from the 
Treasury Bench that the enquiry should be entrusted to a 
Commission of Judges appointed by Act of ParUament. A 
Bill embodying this suggestion was read for the second time 
on July 24, and the names of the Commissioners were added 
in the Committee stage. Sir James Hannen was chosen as 
President of the Commission, and with him were associated 
Sir Charles Day, an Orangeman, and Sir Archibald Levin 
Smith. Mr. H. Cunynghame, a junior barrister (now Sir 



374 HENRY LABOUCHEKE 

Henry Cunynghame), was appointed Secretary to the 
Commission. ^ 

Mr. Labouchere had, of course, scented in the whole 
business a chapter of chronigues scandaleuses after his own 
heart. He set to work to study it at once con amove, and 
very soon came to the conclusion that all the letters had been 
forged by one Richard Pigott, the story of whose chequered 
career was soon to become the property of a marvelling 
public. "Immediately on the Egan letters being produced 
in the O'Donnell v. Walter case," he writes in his own 
account of the affair, "Mr. Egan telegraphed to me that he 
was sending over Carey's letters to him. (Mr. Egan was 
then in America.) These letters followed. They referred 
to a municipal election, and, being written at the same time 
as a forged letter of Mr. Egan to Carey, they proved con- 
clusively that the latter could not be genuine. Whilst the 
discussion was taking place in Parliament about the Royal 
Commission, Mr. Egan again telegraphed that he had been 
comparing the letters ascribed to him in the O'Donnell trial 
with the drafts of certain letters which he had written to 
Pigott about the purchase of the Irishman, ^ and the letters 
ascribed to Mr. Parnell, with the copies of two letters written 
by that gentleman to Pigott in relation to the sale, which 
copies were in his (Egan's) possession. He said that 
he had found such a similarity of phrase in the genuine 
letters and in the forged letters that he was certain that the 
latter were fabricated from the former. An emissary soon 
after came over with the Egan drafts and with Pigott 's 
letters (one of which contained that blessed word 'hesi- 
tancy'), to which the former were replies, and with the 
copies of Mr. Parnell's letters. One of the drafts had been 

^The Counsel for the Times were Sir Richard Webster, the Attorney- 
General, Sir Henry James, Mr. Murphy, Mr. W. Graham, Mr, Atkinson, and 
Mr. Ronan; Sir Charles Russell and Mr. Asquith, M.P., appeared for Mr. 
Parnell. 

» The Irishman was a Fenian newspaper owned by Pigott, and sold by him 
to Parnell in 1881. 



BALFOUR'S COERCION POLICY 375 

published previously as a part of a correspondence between 
Egan and Pigott in the Freeman's Journal, and the copies 
of Mr. Parnell's letters were in the handwriting of Mr. Camp- 
bell.^ Now it was utterly impossible that the similarities, 
amounting in one case to three consecutive lines, could be a 
mere chance. It was, therefore, a mathematical certainty 
that Pigott had forged the letters, while it was obvious that 
Mr. Egan's drafts were genuine, for they could have been at 
once disproved, if incorrect, by Pigott producing, at the 
investigation, the original of them, which, it was to be 
presumed, he had in his possession. I showed the Carey 
letters to Mr. Parnell alone, and the Egan correspondence 
with Pigott to Sir Charles Russell and Mr. Parnell alone, 
and then locked them up. On Mr. George Lewis being 
retained, I handed them over to him, and he proceeded to 
get up Pigott's ' record, ' only a portion of which came before 
the Court, but a portion amply sufficient to show that he had 
lived for years on blackmailing, forgery, and treachery."^ 

Mr. Labouchere then went off to Germany for his summer 
holiday, and, while abroad, a chance conversation revealed to 
him that the incriminating letters had been already shown 
by Mr. Houston, the Secretary of the Loyal and Patriotic 
Association, to Lord Hartington. Houston was therefore 
immediately subpoenaed, and it later transpired that he had 
offered them to the Pall Mall Gazette before he sold them to 
the Times. "Two facts were consequently certain," said 
Mr. Labouchere. "Houston had sold the letters, and Pigott 
had forged them. Although we were ourselves certain of the 
latter fact, it was possible that, as we had only the drafts of 
the Egan letters, it might be said (as indeed it was said, by 
Pigott in the witness-box) that Egan had written his drafts 
from the Times letters, instead of the Times letters having 
been fabricated from the Egan letters. 

"About the middle of October," continued Mr. La- 
bouchere, "Mr. Egan sent over here a trusty emissary, with 

^ Mr. Parnell's secretary. » Truth. 



376 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

orders to report to me, and to see whether it would not be 
possible to buy of Pigott the original of the Egan drafts, for 
he knew his man, and believed (rightly) that he would have 
no objection to sell anything that he possessed for a consid- 
eration. I sent this emissary to Kingstown, where Pigott 
was residing. The emissary told him that Egan wanted 
these originals. Pigott declined to deal with the emissary, 
and said that he must be put in communication with some 
one whom he could trust. On this I told the emissary that 
Pigott could see me at my house on a certain evening. I 
went down to the Commission which was sitting on that 
day, and informed Mr. Parnell and Mr. Lewis of what had 
been arranged. It was agreed that they should both be 
present." 

Mr. Labouchere's letter to Pigott making the appoint- 
ment for this interview has, with its hint to come "by 
the underground, " been so often referred to that it is worth 
while giving it here in full: 

24 Grosvenor Gardens, S. W., Oct. 25, 1888. 

Dear Sir, — I shall be here at 10 o'clock to-morrow morning, 
and shall be happy to see you for a confidential conversation, 
which, as you say, can do no harm, if it does no good. I will 
return you your letter when you come. I think this house would 
be the best place, for it certainly is not watched, and it would be as 
easy to throw off any one coming here as going elsewhere. Your 
best plan would be, I should think, to take the underground, and 
get out at Victoria Station. The house is close by. — Yours 
faithfully, 

H. Labouchere. 

It may be mentioned in parenthesis that Mr. Labouchere 
had misdated his letter. It was really written, as was proved 
by the postmark on the envelope, on October 24, and the 
interview took place on that evening at 10 o'clock, as he 
changed the time of the appointment by telegram. 

Both Mr. Labouchere and Pigott were very well aware 



BALFOUR'S COERCION POLICY 377 

that 24 Grosvenor Gardens, if not being watched at the 
moment when the above letter was penned, would be so as 
soon as Pigott was inside it, for the unhappy forger was 
dogged in all his footsteps by the Times agents. Mr. 
Labouchere had, however, nothing to fear, and poor Pigott 
had very little to lose, and a vague expectation of something 
to gain. The upshot of the interview was that, in the pres- 
ence of Mr. Pamell and Mr. Lewis, Pigott confessed that he 
had forged the letters and suggested that he would give a 
full confession, and write to the Attorney-General and to the 
Times that he was the forger, if Mr. Lewis would withdraw his 
subpoena and let him go to Australia. But it was not 
Pigott's confession that Mr. Lewis and Mr. Labouchere 
wanted. It was the originals of the drafts of the Egan 
letters. Mr. Pamell and Mr. Labouchere withdrew to 
another room, leaving Mr. Lewis to do what he could with 
the slippery Richard. "Soon," to continue the narrative 
in Mr. Labouchere's own words, "Mr. Lewis came into the 
dining-room, and said to me, ' Pigott wants to come to me 
to-morrow and give me a full statement He is going away 
and wants to speak to you'; adding, 'Mind, whatever you 
do, don't give him any money; if you do he will bolt.' I 
left Mr. Lewis with Mr. Parnell, and went back to Pigott. 

"That worthy at once came to business, and said that the 
Times had promised him £5000 to go into the box, and asked 
what I would give for him not to do so. I replied that I 
would give nothing, but that Egan's emissary had already 
told him that, acting for Egan, I wanted the original of the 
Egan drafts, as these would prove the forgery up to the hilt, 
and that if he had them and they were satisfactory, I would 
pay for them He asked whether I would give £5000 for 
them. When I declined, he asked whether I would give 
£1000. I said it would be more like one thousand than five, 
but that I must first see the documents. I then asked whether 
the signature of the Pamell letters, which is at the top of a 
page, was forged, or whether it was an autograph which had 



378 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

fallen into his hands, and he had written the letter on the 
other side. 'Why do you want to know this?' he asked. 
* Mere curiosity, ' I replied. On which he said that it was 
forged. He then left. " 

Nothing definite as to the original Egan letters was ob- 
tained by Mr. Lewis when he called the next day, and neither 
did he obtain the promised statement. The interview with 
Messrs. Labouchere, Lewis, and Parnell at Grosvenor Gar- 
dens, and the subsequent private one with Mr. Lewis, were 
reported to the Times agents by Pigott with a fanciful ac- 
count of what took place at each. He shortly afterwards 
returned to Ireland, and Mr. Labouchere continued his 
efforts to procure all possible evidence on behalf of his Irish 
friends. He was considerably helped by his acquaintances 
in America, who were able to furnish him with invaluable 
details and scraps of knowledge about the various witnesses 
for the Times, which came in appositely more than once in 
Sir Charles Russell's masterly cross-examinations. It is 
interesting to notice, in perusing many of the curious letters 
received by Mr. Labouchere at this period from Irish patriots 
living beyond the Atlantic (what Mr. Labouchere had so 
often heard from the lips of Mr. Parnell himself),^ how far 
from popular Parnell was with most of them. He was too 
meek and mild for them, and they could not understand his 
patience under injury and abuse. In one of these letters 
occurs the following anecdote about the intrepid Irish 
leader: "I want to tell you," says the writer, "something 
about Parnell in 1883 — ask him: two men called on him 
when he was in Cork and said (recollect the two were extrem- 
ists), 'Mr. Parnell, unless you give us £1000 for extreme 
measures we will shoot you before we leave Cork. ' Parnell 
simply replied, 'Well, I certainly have a choice, for which 
I am obliged — to be shot now or to be hung afterwards. 
I prefer the former. You will never get £1000 from me for 
the purpose you mention.' " One and all of these patriots, 

' See letters to Chamberlain in Chapter IX. 



BALFOUR'S COERCION POLICY 379 

however, at this crisis of Pamell's career were determined to 
uphold him, and to allow whatever grievances they had 
against him to stand over until after his political character 
had been vindicated in the eyes of the hated English. 

Mr, Labouchere remained in communication with Pigott 
throughout the winter. Pigott dangled before him the 
possibility of further important communications, and on 
November 29 Mr. Labouchere wrote to him as follows : 

As I understand the position it is this — Mr. Lewis holds that 
we can prove our case against the Times in regard to the letters 
conclusively, and this, you will remember, Mr. Parnell told you. 
We prove it in a certain way. You say that you wish to be kept 
out of it, and not be called as a witness. If such a course can 
strengthen our case, and prove it still more conclusively, I do 
not see why it should not be adopted, for the object is to prove 
irrespective of individuals. Evidently, some one must know 
how you propose to do what you want, and what you say you 
can do. If you like to confide in me, I will tell you what I think, 
and, if I agree with you, it will be then time for you either to 
assent or dissent to Mr. Parnell or Mr. Lewis being informed. 
But you are a practical man — so am I. Mere assertion, neither 
you nor I attach much importance to, without documentary or 
some other clear confirmation. 

Pigott answered as follows : 

Anderton's Hotel, 
Fleet Street, E. C, Dec. 4, 1888. 

Dear Sir, — I have arrived here, and write a line to ask you to 
make an appointment, as I know that your house is watched — 
as is also Mr. Lewis's Office — and as I am "shadowed" wherever 
I go outside a certain limit, perhaps you could kindly arrange 
that we should meet somewhere else to-morrow afternoon or 
Thursday, or in fact any other day you choose. — Faithfuly 
yours, Rd. Piggott. 

What occurred at the meeting which took place as 
the result of the above correspondence is best told in Mr. 



38o HENRY LABOUCHERE 

Labouchere's own words : " Pigott came about ten and stayed 
till one A.M. Again he explained that he had forged, and 
gave me a good many details about the way in which he had 
done it, telling me, amongst other things, that he had given 
Houston three names as the sources of the letters, two of 
which were efforts of his imagination, and the third a real 
person. He seemed rather proud of his skill, and by encour- 
aging this weakness I got everything out of him. I asked 
him how Houston could have been so easily fooled, and 
whether he was an absolute idiot? He replied that he was 
clever up to a certain point, but thought himself twice as 
clever as he was, and that these sort of persons are easily 
trapped. In this I agreed with him, and he told me that 
Houston had told him that he wanted letters, because it was 
intended to publish a pamphlet, and that the letters were to 
be held in reserve to be sprung upon the Court if there was an 
action for libel, adding that such an action would be certain 
not to be brought. Again and again, with weary iteration, 
he came back to his plan to confess in writing, and then to go 
to Australia. I told him that he surely must be sharp enough 
to see to what accusations this would subject me, and how 
hurtful it would be to our case, which I assured him was of 
such strength that it would smash him, quite irrespective 
of anything he might say or do. ' Why, then, do you want 
documents?' he said. 'Because,' I replied, 'the issue is a 
political one. We have to deal with prejudiced Tories who 
have already compromised themselves by pinning themselves 
to the genuineness of the letters, and consequently our case 
cannot be too much strengthened. With such people you 
must put butter upon bacon.' 'What documents do you 
want?' he said. 'Egan's letters, the original signatures 
from which you traced those of Egan and Pamell, and a few 
letters forged in my presence,' I said. 'I have not got 
Egan's letters: I destroyed them. I have not got the signa- 
tures. I gave Houston the letter of Pamell from which I 
took his signature. I will, if you like, forge the letters in 



BALFOUR'S COERCION POLICY 381 

your presence. I will give you the names of the three men 
from whom I told Houston I got the letters, and I will give 
you the letters that Houston wrote to me,' he answered. 
I said that I would not give sixpence for these without the 
two items that I had mentioned, and he reiterated that he 
had not got them. ' Why, * I suddenly said to him, ' did you 
write to Archbishop Walsh about the letters?' 'The 
Archbishop,' he replied, 'has not got my letters; he sent 
them all back ; to reveal anything concerning them would be 
to violate the confidence between a priest and a penitent. ' 
'Well,' I finished by saying, 'think it over. I am going 
out of town. When I return, come and see me again, and 
in the meanwhile try and find the originals of Egan's letters. 
I will let you know when I come back. ' He said that he 
would think it over, and, on wishing him good-night, I asked 
him what he contemplated doing? He said that he was in a 
terrible mess, but that he saw no other course open for him 
but to go into the box and swear that he had bought the 
letters, and that if they were forgeries he had been deceived. 
' You will be a fool if you do, ' I said, ' but that is your affair, 
not mine. If I were in your place I should tell the truth, and 
ask for the indemnity.' 'That is all very well,' he said, 
'but on what am I to live?' And so we parted." Mr. 
Labouchere did not see Pigott again until he saw him in the 
witness-box more than two months later. Pigott returned 
to Ireland about the middle of December and the Commis- 
sion adjourned until January 15. Patrick Egan had written 
to Mr. Labouchere on December 2 from Lincoln, Massa- 
chusetts saying: "I hope you will be able to squeeze the 
truth out of Pigott in the way you say, as I should dislike 
terribly to see him profit in any way by his villainy. I do 
not believe there is a single thing in the suspicion against 
O'Shea. . . . The fellow is incapable of playing the role of 
heavy villain. I am quite convinced that the forgery part of 
the scheme was the sole work of Pigott. You will perceive 
that all your injunctions with regard to secrecy have been 



382 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

observed on this side, but everything gets out from London 
and DubUn. Yesterday we had on one of our Lincoln 
evening papers a cable (probably a copy of a New York 
Herald cable) giving all particulars about the watch that is 
being kept on Pigott and the discovery that C. is doing 
detective work for the Times, that F. was mixed up with the 
forgeries and other matters." 

It must be borne in mind that, when the Commission 
adjourned in the middle of December, the all-important 
question of the letters had not yet been touched upon. ' ' The 
objects of the accusers," says Lord Morley, "was to show the 
complicity of the accused with crime by tracing crime to the 
League, and making every member of the League construc- 
tively liable for every act of which the League was construc- 
tively guilty. Witnesses were produced, in a series that 
seemed interminable, to tell the story of five-and-twenty out- 
rages in Mayo, of as many in Cork, of forty-two in Galway, of 
sixty-five in Kerry, one after another, and all with immeasur- 
able detail. Some of the witnesses spoke no English, and 
the English of others was hardly more intelligible than Erse. 
Long extracts were read out from four hundred and forty 
speeches. The counsel on one side produced a passage that 
made against the Speaker, and then the counsel on the other 
side found and read some qualifying passage that made as 
strongly for him. The three judges groaned. They had al- 
ready, they said plaintively, ploughed through the speeches in 
the solitude of their own rooms. Could they not be taken as 
read? 'No,' said the prosecuting counsel, 'we are building 
up an argument, and it cannot be built up in a silent manner.' 
In truth it was designed for the pubhc outside the court, 
and not a touch was spared that might deepen the odium. 
Week after week the ugly tale went on — a squahd ogre let 
loose among a population demoralised by ages of wicked 
neglect, misery, and oppression. One side strove to show 
that the ogre had been wantonly raised by the Land League 
for political objects of their own; the other, that it was the 



BALFOUR'S COERCION POLICY 383 

progeny of distress and wrong, that the League had rather 
controlled than kindled its ferocity, and that crime and 
outrage were due to local animosities for which neither 
League nor parliamentary leaders were responsible,"^ The 
Nationalists were impatient for the real business to begin, 
for it was felt by every one that, if the letters were proved to 
be genuine, the case was practically won all round for the 
Times, whereas, if they proved to be forgeries, public 
opinion on the subject could have but one bias. Indeed, 
Mr. Chamberlain himself had said: "To lead the inquiry 
off into subsidiary and unimportant matters would be . . . 
fatal to the reputation of the Times — fatal to its success." 
And again, "If the Times fails to maintain its principal 
charges, I do not think much attention will be attached to 
other charges. Any attempt, as it appears to all, on the 
part of the Times to put aside those principal charges 
or not to put them in the forefront will redound to their 
discredit."^ The delay, however, gave this advantage 
to the Nationalist side — they had more time in which to 
accumulate confirmatory evidence against the forger, 
and the forger was given more time in which to further 
involve himself, in the net which his fowler had spread 
for him, by writing foolish letters and telling needless 
lies. Pigott had promised Mr. Labouchere to return to 
London whenever he sent for him. Pamell wrote to 
Mr. Labouchere during the Christmas vacation of the 
Commissioners : 

House of Commons, Jan. 14, 1889. 

My dear Labouchere, — I am anxious to see you before 
your Irish friend returns to London. Kindly give me an ap- 
pointment, and let it be if possible after four o'clock. — Yours 
sincerely, 

Chas. S. Parnell. 

^ Morley, Life oj Gladstone, vol. iii. 

' Macdonald, Diary of the Parnell Commission, July 6, 1887. 



384 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

He wrote again as follows on the 2 ist : 

I do not think you need send for your Dublin friend this time, 
as the Times will probably do that for you, and you will hear when 
he is in London. Another forged letter of Egan's was produced 
in Court last week, and sworn to by Delaney, evidently one of the 
Pigott series. I am laid up with a cold, but hope to be out to- 
morrow, when I will try and call to see you in the afternoon. — 
Yours very truly, Chas. S. Parnell. 

The Irish friend was, of course, Pigott, and Delaney was a 
convict — a witness for the Times. He was one of the Phoenix 
Park criminals, and was described by the Daily Newsreporter, 
present in court, as of "over middle height, stoutish in build, 
reddish-yellow haired, and with features which were more of 
a Russian than an Irish cast. He wore a short jacket of 
check tweed, and a big white cravat about his neck." He 
had been brought up from Maryborough prison, where he 
was doing his life sentence. His brother was hanged for the 
Phoenix Park murders, and so would he have been himself 
if he had not confessed, and, in consequence, had his sentence 
changed from execution to penal servitude for life. He had 
sworn to the handwriting of Patrick Egan on one of the 
letters produced in court. "Are you an expert?" asked Sir 
Charles Russell carelessly. No, Mr. Delaney was not an 
expert, but he remembered the signature after so many 
years, and he identified it when he was shown it "yesterday 
evening" by the Times agent. He was able to identify it 
because Carey, seven or eight years ago, showed him three 
of Mr. Egan's letters. ^ 

Pigott had been subpoenaed by the Times as a witness early 
in December. On January 24, Mr. Labouchere wrote to him 
saying: "I see that Sir R. Webster talks about soon getting 
to the letters. When are you likely to be over? If you wish 
it, I will send your expenses to come over. " At the end of 
the month he sent Pigott £10. Labouchere's letter and the 

^ Macdonald, Diary of the Parnell Commission. 



BALFOUR»S COERCION POLICY 385 

£10 note were confided at once by Pigott to Mr. Houston, 
who handed them over to Mr. Soames, and, of course, they 
were produced in court and a rather different interpretation 
put upon them to the one the recipient knew was warranted. 
Pigott was not called into the witness-box, the ordeal 
which he so justly dreaded, until the fifty-fourth day of the 
Commission's sittings. He at once gave an account of the 
way he had obtained the first batch of incriminating letters. 
It read Hke a romance, as indeed, it was in every sense of 
the word— how Mr. Houston had begged him, if possible, to 
find some authentic documents to substantiate accusations 
against the Irish leaders, how he had set forth for Lausanne, 
all his expenses handsomely paid, and had met there an old 
friend who had told him about a letter written by Parnell 
which was in Paris, and might be obtained; how he had then 
proceeded to Paris and by a marvellous stroke of good luck 
had run up against an Irishman in the street who was able 
to give him more details about the Parnell letter, and other 
documents of a similar kind, which had been foimd in a black 
bag in a Paris lodging-house. He had not immediately 
bought the bag and its contents, because there were many 
difficulties in the way, but he had gone back to London and 
told Mr. Houston the whole story, and returned to Paris 
ready to clinch the bargain. But the Irish friend was not 
easy to bring to terms. He said Pigott must, before he could 
get possession of the letters, go to America and obtain the 
permission to buy them from the Fenians there. To Amer- 
ica he accordingly went, and returned with a letter from John 
Breslin to the Irish friend authorising the sale of the Parnell 
letter (afterwards known as the "facsimile letter") and the 
rest of the papers. Houston came over to Paris and paid 
him £500 for the contents of the black bag, and gave him 
£105 for his own trouble. It must be remembered that all 
his travelling expenses had been paid, as well as £1 a day 
for hotels — ^not a bad remuneration for a needy man such as 
Pigott was, who, it turned out later, was making what Hving 



386 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

he could by the sale of indecent photographs and books to all 
who cared to buy them. Doubtless the black bag was useful 
to him in his book and pictiire business, which was why he did 
not sell it with its temporary contents to Mr. Houston. The 
said contents, as bought by Houston, were as follows: Five 
letters of Mr. Parnell's, six of Patrick Egan's, some scraps 
of paper, and the torn-out leaves of an old account-book. 
The black bag was supposed to have been left in Paris by 
an Irish patriot (Frank Byrne or James O 'Kelly) and had 
been taken possession of by the Clan-na-Gael. Subse- 
quently two other batches of letters were obtained by Pigott 
in Paris, and likewise sold to the Times. 

The Attorney-General, in the course of his examination of 
Pigott, drew from him the following remarkable accotmt of 
his visit to Mr. Labouchere's house on October 24: 

The Attorney-General. Tell us, as nearly as you can, what 
passed between you, Mr. Labouchere, and Mr. Parnell, and if, 
at any part of it, Mr. Parnell was not present, just tell us and draw 
the distinction — what passed as nearly as you can: how did the 
conversation begin? 

Pigott. I think, as well as I recollect, Mr. Parnell commenced 
the conversation, and what he said was to the effect that they 
held proofs in their hands that would convict me of the forgery 
of all the letters, and he asked me, with reference to my statement 
to the effect that I wished if possible to avoid giving evidence at 
all, how I proposed to do that. I explained that I had not been 
subpoenaed by the Times up to that date, that the only subpoena 
I received was the one Mr. Lewis had served me with, and it 
occurred to me then that probably, if I could induce Mr. Lewis 
to withdraw his subpoena, I might avoid in that way coming 
forward at all. Mr. Parnell was of opinion that that could not 
be done, that Mr. Lewis could not withdraw his subpoena, that 
I would be obliged to appear. Then, I think, Mr. Labouchere 
took up the running, and he was rather facetious. 

The Attorney-General. What did he say, please? 

Pigott. He made a proposition to me right out, that I should 



BALFOUR'S COERCION POLICY 387 

appear in the witness-box and swear that I had forged the letters, 
thereby ensuing — entitHng myself to receive from the Commis- 
sioners a certificate of immunity from any proceedings, legal or 
criminal. He said that was his reading of the law, and Mr. Par- 
nell agreed with him that such was the case, that it was an ex- 
tremely simple matter; it was merely going into the box, taking 
an oath, and walking out free. 

The Attorney-General. I want just to get this: did the sug- 
gestion that if you went into the witness-box, and said that you 
forged the letters, that you would get your certificate, come from 
Mr. Labouchere? 

Pigott. Distinctly. 

The Attorney-General. What else, please? 

Pigott. He urged me, as a further inducement to do this, 
that I would become immensely popular in Ireland, the fact that 
I had swindled the Times would be sufficient of itself to secure me 
a seat in Parliament to begin with, and then, if at any time I 
wished to go to the United States, he would undertake that I 
should be received with a torchlight procession from all the organ- 
isations there. Of course, I could scarcely believe that he was 
serious, but still ^ 

Here almost uncontrolled merriment burst out all over 
the court, in which Mr. Labouchere himself joined more 
heartily than any one. 

The President of the Court. I must say, whether this is true or 
not, it is not a fit subject for laughter. 

But whether the President would or no, it was impossible 
to prevent constant ripples of laughter from breaking out 
all over the court while Pigott was narrating his version of 
the first meeting at Mr. Labouchere's house. Pigott told how 
Mr. Lewis had arrived on the scene, and had also denounced 
him as the forger of the letters — "Mr. Lewis assumed his 
severest manner," said Pigott. He continued his evidence 
after some further questions from the Attorney-General. 

' Special Commission Act, 1888, vol. v. 



388 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

PigoU. Mr. Labouchere beckoned me outside the door into 
the hall, and he there said — I forgot to mention that in the course 
of conversation I stated that I had — I do not know exactly 
whether I said I had been promised £5000 by the Times or that 
I had demanded it. 

The Attorney-General. One or the other? 

Pigott. One or the other. So referring to that l\Ir. Labou- 
chere said that they were prepared to pay me £1000 — that he 
himself was prepared to pay me £1000, but, of course, I was not 
to mention anything about it to Mr. Parnell or to Mr. Lewis. 

The President. One moment before you go further. "He 
beckoned me outside" — where was he then? 

Pigott. That was at Labouchere's house. 

The President. I know, but where was it? 

Pigott. Outside into the hall. 

The President. Was it a whole house or was it a flat? 

Pigott. It is a whole house. He took me into the entrance 
hall, the room that we were in was the front room. 

The President. A dining-room or library or what? 

Pigott. A library. 

The A ttorney-General. Is that the end of the conversation that 
then took place? 

Pigott. Up to that time, yes. 

The Attorney-General. What did you say to Mr. Labouchere 
when he said he was prepared to pay you £1000? 

Pigott. I said I thought it was a very handsome sum ; I did 
not say whether I would take it or not. As well as I can recollect, 
however, I raised no objection. I took it that he understood me 
to agree to that sum. Then, on returning to the room, I said 
distinctly — very distinctly — that nothing under heaven would 
induce me to go into the witness-box and swear a lie — nothing 
would. Then Mr. Lewis explained to me the necessity for my 
going into the witness-box might be avoided by the course that 
he suggested: that is that I was to write to the Times to state 
that I believed the letters were forgeries, or that I had forged them 
myself, if I preferred it. At all events I was to acquaint the 
Manager of the Times with the fact that the letters were actual 
forgeries, and that thereupon the Times would naturally withdraw 
the letters, and the thing would drop, and of course Mr. Labou- 



BALFOUR»S COERCION POLICY 389 

chere's offer would stand. Well, Mr. Lewis did not say that, 
but of course I understood it. 

Pigott proceeded to give his account of his interview 
with Mr. Lewis on the following morning. He said that 
Mr. Lewis had taken notes of what he (Pigott) said, and he 
(Pigott) had told Mr. Lewis all he had told Mr. Soames with 
reference to the hunt for and discovery of the incriminating 
letters in Paris. Mr. Soames's evidence, given in court on 
February 15, of what Pigott had told him on this subject 
differed very considerably from what, according to Mr. Lewis's 
notes, he had told the latter. For instance, Mr. Pigott told 
Mr, Lewis on October 25 that he had sold the letters to Mr, 
Houston, never believing for a moment himself that they 
were genuine. In court, on February 21, Pigott denied the 
accuracy of Mr. Lewis's notes, made during his conversation 
with him at Anderton's Hotel on October 25. 

All Pigott's correspondence with Mr. Lewis and Mr. 
Labouchere was then read out in court, with the replies of 
the two gentlemen to Mr. Pigott. The Attorney-General 
ended his examination as follows: 

The Attorney-General. The only other matter I want to put 
to you is this: these gentlemen told you — Mr. Parnell and Mr. 
Labouchere — that they had copies of letters, which they had 
written to you? 

Pigott. Yes. 

The Attorney-General. From which it was alleged that you 
had copied these documents? 

Pigott. Yes. 

The Attorney-General. Did they produce any to you? 

Pigott. No. 

The Attorney-General. Did they at any time, either at Mr. 
Lewis's office or at Mr. Labouchere's, offer to show you any of 
them? 

Pigott. No. 

As the Attorney-General, rearranging his gown, was 



390 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

slowly resuming his seat, a loud murmur of conversation 
broke out over the court. It stopped suddenly. Scarcely 
was the Attorney-General seated when Sir Charles Russell 
stood bolt upright. He had a clean sheet of paper in his 
hand. There was such a silence in the court that even the 
fall of a pin would have been heard. Pigott's little day of 
peace was over. Poor fellow! He had done his best to keep 
his share of the business in the black shadows where such 
deeds are wont to skulk, but the gloom was about to be 
dispelled by the light of truth. 



CHAPTER XIV 
THE COLLAPSE OF RICHARD PIGOTT 

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL'S cross-examination of Pigott 
on the fifty-fourth and fifty-fifth days of the Commis- 
sion's sittings is generally considered to be one of the finest 
things of the kind, from a technical point of view, ever heard. 
A friend who was much with him at that time relates that, on 
the day the cross-examination commenced, he was irritable 
and depressed and unable to eat, and that he could not have 
been more nervous had he been a junior with his first brief 
instead of the most formidable advocate at the Bar. But, 
as he stood facing the forger, his whole appearance changed. 
He was a picture of calmness, self-possession, and strength, 
there was no sign of impatience or irritability, not a trace 
of anxiety or care. ^ In the profound silence that had fallen 
upon the court he began, in tones of great courtesy: 

Mr. Pigott, would you be good enough, with my Lord's per- 
mission, to write some words on that sheet of paper for me. 
Perhaps you will sit down in order to do it. [He gave him the 
sheet of paper he had in his hand.] Would you like to sit down? 

Pigott. Oh no, thanks. 

The President. Well, but I think that it is better that you 
should sit down. Here is a table upon which you can write 
in the ordinary way, the course you always pursue. 

Sir Charles Russell. Will you write the word "livelihood"? 

» Barry O'Brien, Life of Lord Russell of Killowen. 

391 



392 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

Just leave a space. Will you write the word ' ' likelihood ' ' ? Will 
you write your own name, leaving a space between each? Will 
you write the word " proselytism, " and finally, I think I will not 
trouble you any more at present, " Patrick Egan " and " P. Egan " 
underneath it — "Patrick Egan" first and "P. Egan" underneath 
it ? There is one word more I had forgotten. Lower down, please, 
leaving spaces, write the word "hesitancy" with a small "h." 

Pigott, after he had written what he was told, handed 
back the sheet of paper, and, as soon as Sir Charles Russell 
had glanced at it, he knew that he had scored a great point 
for Mr. Parnell. The word that he had told Pigott to write 
last, and with a small " h, " as if that were the significant part 
of the experiment, was the word which Pigott had misspelt 
in one of the letters supposed to be from Parnell to Egan 
which the Attorney-General had produced at the O'Donnell 
V. Walter trial. Pigott had again spelt it wrong. Hesitancy 
on the piece of paper which he handed back to Sir Charles 
Russell was spelt "hesitency. " 

The cross-examination of Pigott occupied the rest of that 
day, and before the end of it the wretched man had fallen 
into hopeless confusion. The production of some of his 
correspondence with the Archbishop of Dublin (Dr. Walsh), 
in which he offered, for a consideration of course, to avert 
the possibility of a blow which was about to fall upon the 
Nationalist party (presumably the publication of the fac- 
simile letter) , almost finished his brazen self-command. The 
day's sitting ended in a roar of laughter, for Pigott's silly, 
aimless reflections, elicited by the advocate's remorseless, 
persistent questions, were ludicrous, and it was easy to see 
what the climax of the affair would be. The next day things 
went worse and worse for Pigott. A correspondence which 
he had with Egan in 1881 was produced, in which he had 
misspelt the word "hesitancy " as he had done the day before 
in court. Egan's answers to Pigott were not forthcoming, 
for reasons which the forger made known later on, but the 



THE COLLAPSE OF RICHARD PIGOTT 393 

drafts of these answers, produced by Mr. Lewis (who had got 
them direct from Mr. Egan through Mr. Labouchere), 
bearing a remarkable similarity to the Egan letters produced 
by the Times, were read by Sir Charles Russell. Copies of 
letters written by Mr. Pamell to Pigott in 1881 were also 
read out, coinciding word for word in parts with the "fac- 
simile letter" and the others put in by the accusers of the 
Nationalist party. Then Pigott was made to acknowledge 
how he had blackmailed Mr. Forster, and Mr. Wemyss Reid 
produced the Pigott-Forster correspondence in court. 
Before the reading of this correspondence was finished, the 
densely packed audience in the court, according to the Daily 
News reporter, was wrought up to the highest pitch of amuse- 
ment and excitement. The court usher had long since 
ceased to cry out "Silence!" The merriment was almost 
continuous. The judges themselves were unable to repress 
their feelings. A loud ringing roar of laughter broke forth 
as Sir Charles Russell read one letter containing Pigott's 
appHcation for £200 to enable him to proceed to Sydney, 
and some hints as to the pressure which was brought to bear 
upon him to pubUsh the Forster letters. Mr. Justice Day, 
bending forward, reddened and shook with laughter. In 
this letter Pigott wrote: "I feel this is my last chance, and 
if that fails only the workhouse and the grave remains." 
Poor Pigott looked as if he would prefer even the grave to the 
witness-box. He changed colour; the helpless, foolish 
smile flickered about the weak heavy mouth; his hands 
moved about restlessly, nervously. Then came the climax — 
Pigott's letter to Mr. Forster, saying that he felt tempted to 
reveal to the world how he had been bribed by Mr. Forster 
to write against the interests of Ireland. The notion of 
Pigott's appearing in the character of injured innocence sent 
the audience off once more into a fit of laughter. It was now 
four o'clock, and, in the uproar and confusion, Pigott de- 
scended from the box, smiling f ooHshly. ^ That he had forged 

» Macdonald, Diary of the Pamell Commission. 



394 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

the letters no one now doubted for a moment. The way he 
had actually done it was not yet absolutely clear, but the 
ingenuous Pigott was not going to leave any mysteries 
unsolved. The court was adjourned until the following 
Tuesday. 

The story of how the court met on February 26, and when 
Pigott was called upon to enter the witness-box there was 
no answer, and how it was subsequently elicited that he had 
disappeared from his hotel on the previous afternoon and 
not been seen again, has been graphically told by more than 
one writer. Who had given him the money to bolt, and 
who had assisted him to evade the constables who were 
supposed to be watching him, has never been positively 
revealed, but the fact remained — there was no Pigott there 
to tell the end of his squalid tale. The court adjourned for 
some thirty minutes, and then Sir Charles Russell made the 
startling announcement that Pigott, without an invitation 
from any one, had called upon Mr. Labouchere in Grosvenor 
Gardens on the previous Saturday, the day after his disas- 
trous cross-examination, and had then and there dictated 
to him a full confession. This confession had been signed 
by Pigott and witnessed by Mr. George Augustus Sala. 
Mr. George Lewis, to whom Mr. Labouchere had communi- 
cated the confession, had refused to have anything to do with 
the docimient, and sent it back to Pigott with the following 
letter: 

Ely Place, Holborn, Feb. 25, 1889. 

Sir, — Mr. Labouchere has informed me that on Saturday you 
called at his house and expressed a desire to make a statement in 
writing, and he has handed to us the confession you have made, 
that you are the forger of the whole of the letters given in evidence 
by the Times purporting to be written respectively by Mr. Parnell, 
Mr. Egan, Mr. Davitt, and Mr. O'Kelly, and that, in addition, 
you committed perjury in support of the case of the Times. Mr. 
Parnell has instructed us to inform you that he declines to hold 
any communication directly or indirectly with you, and he further 



THE COLLAPSE OF RICHARD PIGOTT 395 

instructs us to return you the written confession which we enclose, 
and which for safety sake we send by hand. — We are, sir, yours 

obediently, 

Lewis & Lewis. 
Richard Pigott, Esq. 

On the following day Sir Richard Webster made the 
announcement to the court that a letter had been received 
in Pigott's handwriting, posted in Paris, addressed to Mr. 
Shannon, the Dubhn soHcitor, who had been assisting Mr. 
Soames, The letter had not been opened, and he handed it 
to the President of the Commission, who passed it down to 
Mr. Cimynghame, and asked him to open and read its 
contents. It was Pigott's confession made to Mr. Labouchere 
and Mr. Lewis's letter to Pigott quoted above. The en- 
velope contained also a note from the irrepressible Pigott as 
follows: 

H6tel de Deux Mondes, 
Avenue de l'Opera, Paris, Tuesday. 

Dear Sir, — Just before I left enclosed was handed to me. 

It had been left while I was out. Will write again soon. — Yours 

truly, 

R. Pigott. 

The confession, as far as the letters were concerned, ran 
as follows: 

The circumstances connected with the obtaining of the letters, 
as I gave in evidence, are not true. No one save myself was 
concerned in the transaction. I told Houston that I had dis- 
covered the letters in Paris, but I grieve to have to confess that 
I simply myself fabricated them, using genuine letters of Messrs. 
Parnell and Egan in copying certain words, phrases, and general 
character of the handwriting. I traced some words and phrases 
by putting the genuine letter against the window, and placing 
on it the sheet of which copies have been read in court, 
and four or five letters of Mr. Egan, which were also read in 
court. I destroyed these letters after using them. Some of the 



396 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

signatures I traced in this manner, and some I wrote. I then 
wrote to Houston telHng him to come to Paris for the documents. 
I told him that they had been placed in a black bag with some 
old accounts, scraps of paper, and old newspapers. On his 
arrival I produced to him the letters, accounts, and scraps of 
paper. After a brief inspection he handed me a cheque on 
Cook for £500, the price that I told him I had agreed to pay for 
them. At the same time he gave me £105 in bank-notes as my 
own commission. The accounts put in were leaves torn from 
an old account book of my own, which contained details of the 
expenditure of Fenian money entrusted to me from time to time, 
which is mainly in the handwriting of David Murphy, my cashier. 
The scraps I found in the bottom of an old writing-desk. I 
do not recollect in whose writing they are. 

The second batch of letters was also written by me. Mr. 
Parnell's signature was imitated from that published in the Times 
facsimile letter. I do not now remember where I got the Egan 
letter from which I copied the signature. 

I had no specimen of Campbell's handwriting beyond the two 
letters of Mr. Parnell to me, which I presumed might be in Mr. 
Campbell's handwriting. I wrote to Mr. Houston that this 
second batch was for sale in Paris, having been brought there 
from America. He wrote asking to see them. I forwarded them 
accordingly, and after keeping them three or four days, he sent 
me a cheque on Cook for the price demanded for them, £550. 
The third batch consisted of a letter imitated by me from a letter 
written in pencil to me by Mr. Davitt when he was in prison, 
and of another letter copied by me from a letter of a very early 
date, which I received from James O 'Kelly when he was writing 
on m.y newspapers, and of a third letter ascribed to Egan, the 
writing of which, and some of the words, I copied from an 
old bill of exchange in Mr. Egan's handwriting. £200 was 
the price paid to me by Mr. Houston for these three letters. It 
was paid in bank-notes. I have stated that for the first batch 
I received £105 for myself, for the second batch I got £50, for the 
third batch I was supposed to receive nothing. 

I did not see Breslin in America. This was part of the 
deception. 

With respect to my interview with Messrs. Pamell, Labou- 



THE COLLAPSE OF RICHARD PIGOTT 397 

chere, and Lewis, my sworn statement is in the main correct. I 
am now, however, of opinion that the ofEer to me by Mr. Labou- 
chere of £1000 was not for giving evidence but for any documents 
in Mr Egan's or Mr. Pamell's handwriting that I might happen to 
have. My statement only referred to the first interviews with 
these o-entlemen. I had a further interview with Mr. Labouchere, 
on which occasion I made him acquainted with further circum- 
stances not previously mentioned by me at the preceding mter- 
views. 

There was a pause after Mr. Cunynghame finished read- 
ing the extraordinary document. It was an awkward 
moment for the Attorney-General, but, in an extremely dig- 
nified speech, he informed the court that, on behalf of his 
cHents, he asked permission to withdraw from the considera- 
tion of the Commission the question of the genuineness of the 
letters which had been submitted to them. On that day 
Mr. Parnell appeared for the first time in the witness-box, 
and in answer to Sir Charles Russell's questions swore to the 
forgery of his signature on all the letters in question. There 
was no attempt to cross-examine on the part of Sir Richard 
Webster. Mr. Labouchere entered the witness-box on 
March 3. He gave his evidence very slowly and realistically, 
rather in the style perhaps of what Lord Randolph Churchill 
described as newspaper paragraphs, but there was no lack 
of connection in his descriptions of his various interviews 
with Pigott. When it came to the final interview on the 
preceding Saturday the questions of the great advocate 
became very close. 

Sir Charles Russell. He came to your house? 

Mr. Labouchere. He did. 

Sir Charles Russell. Did you expect him? 

Mr. Labouchere. No. 

Sir Charles Russell. Had he given you any warning he was 

coming? 

Mr. Labouchere. No. 

Sir Charles Russell. Or had you asked him to come? 



398 HENRY LABOUCHEKE 

Mr. Lahouchere. No. 

Sir Charles Russell. Now tell us what took place on the 
occasion. 

Mr. Lahouchere He came in. I did not catch the name 
when the servant introduced him. I was writing at the table, 
and looked up, and saw him standing before me, and he said to 
me, "I suppose you are surprised at seeing me here?" And I 
said, " Oh! not at all. Pray take a seat. " 

Sir Charles Russell. I said what ? 

Mr. Lahouchere. "Not at all. " Nothing would surprise me 
about Mr. Pigott. He sat down. He then said that he had 
come over to confess everything; that he supposed he should have 
to go to prison, and he was just as well there as anywhere else. I 
said that he must thoroughly understand if he did confess, the 
confession would be handed to Mr. Lewis, and that I must have a 
witness. 

Of the historic interview in Mr. Labouchere's study in 
Grosvenor Gardens there has been no more graphic an 
account written than the one by its only witness, the veteran 
journalist, George Augustus Sala: 

In February 1889 [he wrote] I was the occupant of a flat in 
Victoria Street, Westminster, and one Saturday, between one and 
two P.M., a knock came at my study door, and I was handed a 
letter which had been brought in hot haste by a servant who was 
instructed to wait for an answer. The missive was of the briefest 
possible kind, and was from my near neighbour Mr. Henry 
Lahouchere, M.P., whose house was then at 24 Grosvenor Gar- 
dens. The note ran thus : "Can you leave everything and come 
here at once? Most important business. — H. L." I told the 
servant that I would be in Grosvenor Gardens within a quarter of 
an hour, and, ere that time had expired, I was ushered into a large 
library on the ground floor, where I found the senior member for 
Northampton smoking his sempiternal cigarette, but with an 
unusual and curious expression of animation on his normaUy 
passive countenance. 

He was not alone. Ensconced in a roomy fauteuil, a few 
paces from Mr. Labouchere's writing-table, there was a somewhat 



THE COLLAPSE OF RICHARD PIGOTT 399 

burly individual of middle stature and more than middle age. 
He looked fully sixty, although I have been given to understand 
that his age did not exceed fifty-five; but his elderly aspect was 
enhanced by his baldness, which revealed a large amount of oval 
OS fr otitis fringed by grey locks. The individual had an eyeglass 
screwed into one eye, and he was using this optical aid most 
assiduously; for he was poring over a copy of that morning's 
issue of the Times, going right down one column and apparently 
up it again ; then taking column after colunm in succession ; then 
harking back as though he had omitted some choice paragraph ; 
and then resuming the sequence of his lecture, ever and anon 
tapping that ovoid frontal bone of his, as though to evoke mem- 
ories of the past, with a little silver pencil-case. I noted his 
somewhat shabby genteel attire, and, in particular, I observed 
that the hand which held the copy of the Times never ceased to 
shake. Mr. Labouchere, in his most courteous manner and his 
blandest tone, said, ''Allow me to introduce you to a gentleman 

of whom you must have heard a great deal, Mr. . " I 

replied, "There is not the slightest necessity for naming him. I 
know him well enough. That 's Mr. Pigott." 

The individual in the capacious fauteuil wriggled from be- 
hind the Times an uneasy acknowledgment of my recognition; 
but if anything could be conducive to putting completely at his 
ease a gentleman who, from some cause or another, was troubled 
in his mind, it would have been the dulcet voice in which Mr. 
Labouchere continued: "The fact is that Mr. Pigott has come 
here, quite unsolicited, to make a full confession. I told him that 
I would listen to nothing he had to say, save in the presence of a 
witness, and, remembering that you lived close by, I thought that 
you would not mind coming here and listening to what Mr. Pigott 
has to confess, which will be taken down, word by word, from his 
dictation in writing." It has been my lot during a long and 
diversified career to have to listen to a large number of very queer 
statements from very queer people; and, by dint of experience, 
you reach at last a stage of stoicism when little, if anything, that 
is imparted to you excites surprise. Mr. Pigott, although he 
had screwed his courage to the sticking place of saying that he 
was going to confess, manifested considerable tardiness in orally 
"owning up." Conscience, we were justified in assuming, had 



400 HENRY LABOUCHEKE 

gnawed to an extent sufficient to make him disposed to relieve his 
soul from a dreadful burden; but conscience, to all seeming, had 
to gnaw a little longer and a little more sharply ere he absolutely 
gave tongue. So we let him be for about ten minutes. Mr. 
Labouchere kindled another cigarette. I lighted a cigar. 

At length Mr. Pigott stood up and came forward into the 
light, by the side of Mr. Labouchere's writing-table. He did 
not change colour; he did not blench; but when — out of the 
fulness of his heart, no doubt — his mouth spake, it was in a low, 
half-musing tone, more at first as though he were talking to 
himself than to any auditors. By degrees, however, his voice 
rose, his diction became more fluent. It is only necessary that, 
in this place, I should say that, in substance, Pigott confessed 
that he had forged the letters alleged to have been written by 
Mr. Parnell; and he minutely described the manner in which he, 
and he alone, had executed the forgeries in question. Whether 
the man with the bald head and the eyeglass in the library at 
Grosvenor Gardens was telling the truth or was uttering another 
batch of infernal lies it is not for me to determine. No pressure 
was put upon him, no leading questions were asked him, and he 
went on quietly and continuously to the end of a story which I 
should have thought amazing had I not had occasion to hear 
many more tales even more astounding. He was not voluble, 
but he was collected, clear, and coherent; nor, although he re- 
peatedly confessed to forgery, fraud, deception, and misrepresen- 
tation, did he seem overcome with anything approaching active 
shame. His little peccadilloes were plainly owned, but he 
appeared to treat them more as incidental weakness than as 
extraordinary acts of wickedness. 

When he had come to the end of his statement Mr. Labouchere 
left the library for a few minutes to obtain a little refreshment. 
It was a great relief to me when he came back, for, when Pigott 
and I were left together, there came over me a vague dread that 
he might disclose his complicity with the Rye House Plot, or 
that he would admit that he had been the executioner of King 
Charles I. The situation was rather embarrasing ; the time might 
have been tided over by whistling, but unfortunately I never learnt 
to whistle. It would have been rude to read a book ; and besides, 
to do so would have necessitated my taking my eyes off Mr. 



THE COLLAPSE OF RICHARD PIGOTT 401 

Pigott, and I never took them off him. We did get into conversa- 
tion, but our talk was curt and trite. He remarked, first taking 
up that so-often-conned Times, that the London papers were 
inconveniently large. This, being a self-evident proposition, 
met with no response from me, but on his proceeding to say, in 
quite a friendly manner, that I must have found the afternoon's 
interview rather stupid work, I replied that, on the contrary, so 
far as I was concerned, I had found it equally amusing and 
instructive. Then the frugal Mr. Labouchere coming back with 
his mouth full, we went to business again. The whole of Pigott's 
confession, begiiming with the declaration that he had made it 
uninvited and without any pecuniary consideration, was read 
over to him line by line and word by word. He made no cor- 
rection or alteration whatsoever. The confession covered several 
sheets of paper, and to each sheet he affixed his initials. Finally, 
at the bottom of the completed document he signed his name 
beneath which I wrote mine as a witness. ^ 

The history of the Commission subsequent to Pigott's 
disappearance does not belong to this biography. It is 
enough to say that it terminated its business on November 
20, 1889, after having sat no less than 126 times. 

On the 8th of March, eight days after his last appearance 
in the witness-box, the news of Pigott's suicide reached 
London. It appeared that after his interview with Mr. 
Labouchere and Mr. Sala, he treated himself to an evening's 
amusement at the Alhambra Music Hall. He left on 
Monday morning for Paris, whence he posted the envelope 
containing his confession and other enclosures to Mr. Shan- 
non. He reached Madrid on Thursday, where he put up at 
the Hotel des Ambassadeurs, and spent the afternoon and 
following morning in visiting the churches and picture 
galleries. He would not have been tracked so quickly by 
the detectives if he had not sent a wire to Mr. Shannon — the 
Dublin solicitor who had assisted Mr. Soames — ^asking for 
the money "you promised me," which gave the clue to his 

^ Life of Sala, written by himself, vol. ii. 
26 



402 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

whereabouts. On the following afternoon, when he was 
informed by the hotel interpreter that a police officer wanted 
him, he retired to his bedroom and shot himself through the 
brain. ^ 

Richard Pigott had one redeeming feature in his character 
— unless his complete lack of self -consciousness in evil doing 
be counted as another — an intense love for his motherless 
children. There were four of these. Mr. Labouchere's 
compassion for the wretched man had early been aroused 
in connection with the really pathetic state of his domestic 
affairs, and, although his "underground" relations with 
Pigott prevented him from being able to promise definitely 
to give him any assistance for his children in the event of the 
Times or Pamell prosecuting him as a consequence of his 
confession, it is easily to be imagined that Pigott would have 
perceived during his visits to Grosvenor Gardens the extra- 
ordinary tenderness of feeling that Mr. Labouchere could 
never conceal where there was a question of any suffering to 
be saved to a child. In his examination by Sir Charles Rus- 
sell Mr. Labouchere had said : " Pigott said to me, ' I shall go 
to prison, but perhaps I am better there than anywhere else ; 
the only thing I regret is the position of my children, who will 
starve.' I said: 'Well, I think they won't starve, or any- 
thing of that sort, but if you want me to make any terms 
about your children, you must not expect it from me.'" 
Poor puzzled Pigott! He had done everything he could to 
please every one round him, and yet he could get no one at 
this crisis to do the one thing that would have set his flutter- 
ing mind at ease. No one would promise to befriend the 
four little boys at Kingstown. Truly, as he had told Mr. 
Labouchere, he was in a terrible mess. 

But as soon as the poor fellow was dead, and his motives 
could no longer be impugned by the vigilant Tories, Mr. 
Labouchere set himself with energy to see that the children 
were cared for. He sent a friend to Kingstown to report to 

» Macdonald, Diary of the Pamell Commission. 



THE COLLAPSE OF RICHARD PIGOTT 403 

him on the condition of the orphans, and she wrote to him as 
follows: "I had a long chat with the housekeeper who is to 
my mind an excellent woman. A more self-forgetful 
creature I never saw, and nobody ever wrapped truths in 
softer garments. She pitied her master. She says that 
Pigott adored these children, and that it was his desire to 
give them comforts and education which drove him into such 
crimes. I do hope that something will be done for these 
poor friendless children, to whom the father was a most 
indulgent parent. I saw lying in the room little toy yachts 
and tricycles, bearing evidence that there was softness as 
well as weakness in the character of the dead man. The only 
relative that the housekeeper knows of is an luicle, who holds 
a good position under the Government. She wrote to him 
and got no reply." A fund was started for the benefit of 
the children, and in the pages of Truth Mr, Labouchere 
pleaded their cause with eloquence. In May Archbishop 
Walsh wrote to him as follows: 

4 Rutland Square, 
Dublin, May 23, 1889. 

Dear Mr. Labouchere, — There are two ways in which effect 
can be given to your charitable purpose. The trust can be 
executed direct through me, or I can arrange to have the matter 
carried out by the parish priests of the place where Pigott lived — 
Glasthule close by Kingscown, Dublin. I may say to you that 
two generous offers were made to me immediately after the 
suicide. One was a proposal to take charge of the two elder 
boys with a view to their emigration to the U. S. or Canada, where 
something would be done to give them a fair start. The other 
was an offer to take one of the younger children and practically 
to provide for this little fellow by an informal adoption. 

In both cases I pointed out that there is, I fear, a serious 
difficulty in the way of my interfering in any prominent way in 
the case, and indeed in the interference of anyone who is an 
active sympathizer (as was the case in the two offers) with Home 
Rule, etc. 



404 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

The Liberal Unionists of Dublin who brought the unfortunate 
father into temptation have a heavy responsibility towards the 
poor children. It is worse than mean of them to shirk it. But 
they not only shirk it, they try to throw the responsibility on to 
the other side. The insinuation made by many of them is that 
Pigott was got out of the country by sympathizers with Mr. 
Parnell, and that the suicide even may have been managed for a 
consideration. 

A very serious question then arises as to what can be prudently 
done in the case of the children. Of course they must not be 
neglected. But, so far as I can see, there is no present danger on 
that score. The two elder boys are at school at Clongowes, a 
high-class school for lay pupils, conducted by the Jesuit Fathers. 
Their schoolfellows have, throughout the whole case, shown a 
splendid spirit towards them. The two younger boys are safely 
placed in charge of the former housekeeper in a place where they 
are not known, not far from Dublin. 

My advice would be to let matters lie until the school holiday 
time comes on, about the beginning of July. 

In the meantime I shall communicate with the persons who 
made the offers of which I have told you. 

When the case comes to be dealt with, I should suggest that 
the best way to act would be through Canon Harold, the parish 
priest. 

Meanwhile should not something be done through the news- 
papers to work up the call, which can be most legitimately made, 
on the Irish Liberal Unionists to do at all events something 
really substantial in the case? — I remain, dear Mr. Labouchere, 
faithfully yours, 

William Walsh, Archbishop of Dublin. 

The statement of Dr. Walsh that there were people in 
Dublin who insinuated that Pigott had been got out of the 
country by the friends of the Nationalists seems almost 
incredible, but it is a fact that, even in England, in country 
places, lectures were given, under the auspices of the Prim- 
rose League, to persuade rural voters, who might have been 
reading the newspapers, that the forgery of the Pigott letters 



THE COLLAPSE OF RICHARD PIGOTT 405 

had never been proved, and even more ridiculous statements 
were made in some places. Mr. Labouchere wrote in Truth 
on March 7 : 

I feel it my duty solemnly to afi&rm that (incredible as it may 
appear to Primrose Dames) I did not bribe Pigott to commit 
suicide by promising him an annuity. It is somewhat fortunate 
for me that I can prove an alibi ; otherwise I make no doubt that 
I should have been accused of having been concealed in Pigott's 
room at Madrid, and having shot him. Well, well, I suppose that 
allowance must be made for the crew of idiots who have gone 
about vowing that the Times forgeries were genuine letters, and 
who are now grovelling in the mire that they have prepared for 
themselves. 

Nothing can exceed my sorrow that we were not privileged to 
hear in court the evidence of the expert in handwriting, Inglis. 
So great, indeed, is my regret that I will willingly (if the Times 
is in want of money) pay the sum of £20 for his "proof. " I have 
always regarded these experts as the most dreary of humbugs, 
and in this view I am now confirmed. I myself subjected the 
photographs of the Times forgeries to the limelight in a magic- 
lantern, and I soon discovered that there were signs of tracing. 
In some of the words — and particularly in the signatures — there 
is a small white line, where the ink had not taken over the tracing. 
If Inglis had done the same, he would not probably have made 
so ridiculous a fool of himself. 

It must be owned that Mr. Labouchere made himself 
exceedingly annoying in the pages of Truth on the subject 
of the forged letters. His taunts and scathing witticisms 
at the expense of the prosecuting side and Messrs. Soames, 
Houston & Co. were almost past enduring, and more than 
one apology was furiously demanded of him, to which he 
usually replied by heaping more ridicule on the unfortunate, 
writhing victim. Some abortive attempts were made to hoax 
him and make a fool of him as he succeeded so frequently 
in doing of others. In the winter of 1889 a somewhat 
unpleasant case was brought before the Central Criminal 



406 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

Court, the only event of public interest connected with 
which was the departure from England of a well-known 
nobleman on the very eve of the day that the warrant was 
issued for his arrest, and it was in connection with this affair 
that someone tried to put salt on Labby's tail. Whoever 
the joker was he must have felt rather sold when he read 
the following paragraph in the next issue of Labby's journal; 

I have received through the post the following letter and 
enclosure. Evidently someone is attempting to Pigott me. I 
do not hesitate to say that the letters are not from those by 
whom they profess to be written. It is really shameful that two 
such good men and true as Lord Salisbury and Mr. Houston 
should be selected for this reprehensible hoax. 

Primrose League Central Offices, 
Victoria Street. 

Sir, I enclose you an autograph letter of Lord Salisbury. I 
obtained it from a man of the name of Hammond, whom I 
promised to reward if he could get me any letters likely to injure 
the character of Tory leaders. He tells me that a client of his 
in Cleveland Street called upon him and produced it from a black 
bag. I have already offered the letter to Lord Hartington and 
to the Editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, but they have both declined 
to have anything to do with it. If you use it I must request 
you to send me a cheque for £1000, and you must pledge yourself 
never to give up the name of Hammond. He is a very worthy 
man, and he fears that if it were known that he had given me the 
letter some Tory would shoot him. — Your obedient servant, 

E. C. Houston. 

{Enclosure) 

Hatfield House, Oct., 17. 

My dear Lord***, — There is a good deal of evidence against 
you, although the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General 
have decided that the evidence of identity is not sufficient, but 
I hear a rumour that more evidence can be obtained. I can count 
upon the Chancellor standing to his guns, but I am not quite 
so sure of Webster. He, you know, will have to answer that 



THE COLLAPSE OF RICHARD PIGOTT 407 

scoundrel Labouchere in the House of Commons, when he brings 
on the subject and he is getting shaky. Perhaps he will be 
forced to issue a warrant. — Yours very truly, 

Salisbury. 

Another hoax practised on Mr. Labouchere came off, 
and a considerable time elapsed before the perpetrator of it 
was discovered. He eventually turned out to be a member 
of one of the most staid and respectable clubs in London. 
Here is the story of the hoax, as Mr. Labouchere related it 
in Truth: 

During the last few weeks I have received a number of anony- 
mous letters, all in the same handwriting, couched in terms the 
reverse of complimentary. Some of them were on the paper of 
the East India United Service Club, St. James's Square. This 
did not trouble me, as I receive so many of such letters that I 
am accustomed to them. On Thursday last, however, my anony- 
mous friend sent orders signed in my name to a number of trades- 
men desiring them to send me goods. He ordered two hearses 
each with two mourning coaches, and requested a representative of 
the cremation company to call and arrange for my cremation. He 
also ordered a marriage cake of Messrs. Buzzard, a bed of Messrs. 
Shoolbred. furniture of Messrs. Maple, Messrs. Druce, and Messrs. 
Barker & Co. ; coal of Messrs. Whiteley, Ricketts, Herbert Clarke 
& Co.; Cockerell & Lee; a coat of Mr. Cording, caps of Messrs. 
Lincoln & Bennett, a billiard table of Messrs. Thurston, prints 
of Messrs. Clifford, carpets of Messrs. Swan & Edgar, beer, spirits, 
and wine from several firms, some of which was delivered, and a 
vast number of other goods from West End houses, including an 
umbilical belt for hernia from a city firm. He also sent letters 
to various physicians in my name, and they have favoured me 
in reply with prescriptions for divers diseases. He further 
engaged cabins for me to India and to the United States. Not 
content with this he ordered a salmon to be sent in my name to 
Mr. Gladstone, a Stilton cheese to Sir William Harcourt, a 
travelling bag to Mr. Asquith, and a haunch of venison to Sir 
George Trevelyan. And he supplemented these liberal orders 



4o8 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

by issuing invitations in the name of a mythical niece to a party 
at Twickenham and a dinner at my London house. All this is 
far more annoying to the tradesmen than it is to me, and I would 
therefore suggest to my friend to revert to his old plan of anony- 
mous letters. Neither of the hearses came, owing to representa- 
tives of the firms having called to know how many men would be 
required to carry my corpse downstairs. Had the hearse arrived 
it would have been curious, as the mutes would probably have 
disputed in which I was to be moved off, and would have had to 
appeal to me eating my marriage cake and arrayed in my 
umbilical belt to decide to which I would give my preference. 



CHAPTER XV 
MR. LABOUCHERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE CABINET 

THERE is no doubt about the fact that Mr. Labouchere 
was always at his best when he was in Opposition. This 
characteristic was not peculiar to him, but was shared by 
Sir William Harcourt, and, in a marked degree, by Lord 
Randolph Churchill. During the six years of Lord Salis- 
bury's second administration (August, i886-August, 1892), 
he stood out prominently as a man of ability and independent 
courage in what was an extremely weak and inefficient 
Opposition. Always true to his Radical principles, he 
protested ably whenever the questions of Civil Service 
estimates were to the fore — the expenses incurred in the 
removal or restoration of diplomatic and consular buildings, 
or in the organisation of missions and embassies to foreign 
countries, all the involved expenditure that is comprehended 
under the term, so mysterious to the lay mind, of "miscel- 
laneous legal buildings," in the upkeep of the royal parks 
and palaces. The annual expenditure for the warming and 
lighting of Kew Palace especially aroused his ire. He had, 
he said, hunted for the building and at last perceived over an 
iron gate a tumble down, depressed-looking house in which 
he could not imagine that anyone less insane than George III. 
in his later years could be expected to wish to reside, and if 
there were any such, they might, at least, warm and light 
themselves without any application to the British taxpayer. 
As for Kensington Palace, to vote an annual sum for its 

409 



410 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

maintenance was merely dropping water into a bottomless 
well. It was dilapidated and useless. Why not pull it down 
or turn it into a large restaurant — an investment which 
would certainly pay — and put money into the taxpayer's 
pockets for a change? Of course he should advocate that 
only temperance drinks should be sold upon the premises, 
but even with that restriction a profit would be certain. 
Then he would attack the extravagance of the House of 
Commons. Oil lamps in the committee rooms! Were 
Ministers a species of patron saints before whom perpetual 
lamps had to be kept burning in order to secure their favours? 
Electric light had been installed in the House, and yet the 
annual sum spent on oil lamps was undiminished. Perhaps, 
replied the long-suffering Mr. Plunkett, after the expenditure 
on oil had been ruthlessly gone into and shown to be super- 
fluous, the hon. member for Northampton will soon be a 
Minister himself and will then know the awkwardness of 
attending in the House from three in the afternoon to one 
in the morning and having to turn up or down an oil lamp 
every time he went from one room to another. In short, 
Mr. Labouchere's obstructionary tactics were magnificent. 
His speeches on the Triple Alliance were marked by an 
intimate knowledge of European politics acquired by a long 
and sympathetic frequentation of the best politicians in 
Europe and as different as possible from the accumulation of 
facts out of text-books which formed the mental equipment 
on the subject of many of his colleagues. The point of 
departure of his first speech on the Triple Alliance was a 
statement made in the Italian Parliament on May 14, 1891, 
by a deputy named Chiala to the effect that the Italian 
position was now secure by land and sea, English interests 
being identical with Italian. On June 2, 1891, he asked 
Sir James Fergusson whether special imdertakings were 
entered into in 1887 between England and Italy of such 
importance as to justify Signor Chiala's remark, which had 
met with no challenge in the Italian Chamber, and he spoke 



EXCLUSION FROM THE CABINET 411 

with characteristic eloquence both then and on July 9, 
against the renewal of the Triple Alliance, which obliged 
England, he said, to side with Italy against France, under 
the pretext of maintaining the status quo in the Mediter- 
ranean. Mr. Gladstone wrote him the following letter on 
the subject : 

Ha WARDEN Castle, Chester, July 11, 1891. 

Dear Mr. Labouchere, — So far as I can understand I 
think you have left the question of the Triple Alliance and our 
relation to it standing well in itself and well for us. If ever there 
was a complication from which England ought to stand absolutely 
aloof it is this. I would take for a proof apart from all others the 
astounding letter of Mr. Stead in yesterday's Pall Mall Gazette, 
who founds an European policy on the isolation of France still 
perhaps at the head of continental civilisation. I fear with you 
that Salisbury has given virtual pledges for himself which in all 
likelihood he will never even be called upon to redeem, and which 
Parliament and members of Parliament may with perfect pro- 
priety object to his redeeming. What a little surprises me is 
that the Italians should not better understand the frailty of 
the foundation on which I fear they have built their hopes. 

In the Daily News yesterday Mr. White says the alliance was 
first concluded in 1882. If so it was certainly without our appro- 
bation, I think without our knowledge. — Yours faithfully, 

W. E. Gladstone. 

In Mr. Labouchere's attacks on Lord Salisbury's Foreign 
Office adminstration, he found many of the opportunities 
which he loved of pouring ridicule upon the whole institution 
of diplomacy. He told the Committee, during the discus- 
sion on the Foreign Office vote, how the service is recruited. 
A friend of his, he said, who reached the top of his profession, 
presented himself for examination. Of the questions put 
before him he could answer none, being completely ignorant 
of the subjects upon which they were supposed to test him. 
Great was his surprise when the results of the examination 



412 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

were made known. He found himself not only passed but 
at the top of the list of candidates. "How can these things 
be ? " he asked the examiner when he next met him. ' ' Well, ' ' 
replied the great man, "we saw you knew nothing, but your 
manner was so free from constraint under what to some peo- 
ple would have been embarrassing circumstances, that we 
decided: 'That's the very man to make a diplomatist,* 
and so we passed you. " That this little anecdote was intro- 
duced to the notice of Sir James Fergusson as a prelude to 
Mr. Labouchere's bland explanation that, according to his 
personal experience, Under-Secretaries for Foreign Affairs 
and members of the diplomatic body generally were of all 
men the most ignorant, did not rob it of any of its sting. 
Across the Channel, Mr. Labouchere's abilities, where foreign 
politics were concerned, were rated at their true value. In 
February, 1892, the Voltaire published a long article dealing 
with the personaUty of this "remarkable man " and his know- 
ledge of European affairs, which concluded with these words : 
"Mr. Labouchere is one of those grand Englishmen who do 
credit both to the party which they defend and to the party 
which they condescend to attack. Moreover, shortly he 
will be a member of the Cabinet, and Mr. Gladstone depends 
on his co-operation to finish the last struggle with the dying 
Tory party. " 

That Mr. Labouchere's name was not included in Mr. 
Gladstone's Cabinet of 1892 was an omission that struck 
not only European politicians but the public of England, both 
Conservative and Radical, as curious. Mr. Gladstone, who 
had intended him to have one of the most important oiEiices 
in the Cabinet (not the Post Office, as has been so often 
asserted), was himself taken aback, and so much so that 
when he was made aware that the Queen would object to 
Mr. Labouchere's name being submitted to her, he went the 
length of privately asking Mr. Labouchere to write him a 
letter stating that he should not accept office were it offered 
to him. Had Mr. Labouchere been under the necessity of 



EXCLUSION FROM THE CABINET 413 

wishing to improve his political position in the country, there 
is no doubt that this would have been his opportunity for 
doing so. Such a course of action would have appeared to 
the superficial observer to fit in with his Radical principles, 
and he could have pretended to his followers that he con- 
sidered his power greater below the gangway than on the 
pedestal of office, and (a matter, however, which was of 
supreme indifference to him) his enemies could not have 
pointed the finger of scorn at him. Incidentally, too, Mr. 
Gladstone would have been saved from an imputation of 
ingratitude to a follower who had stood by him, through 
thick and thin, to win the cause that the Grand Old Man 
had nearest his heart, to wit, Home Rule for Ireland, and 
a follower, who, throughout a long and original political 
career, had never once failed towards his leader in any detail 
of the minutiae that went to make up the etiquette of political 
intercourse in the last century. But, as Mr. Labouchere 
explained to a near relative at the time, he could n 't stand 
the humbug of the suggestion, and he would, moreover, have 
been pledged to support the Ministry. Besides, that the 
Queen should have objected to him was not a surprise. 
Nobody was able to appreciate better than himself, with his 
tolerant view of human nature, the fact that tastes differ, 
and to realise more fully that, in so far as personal feelings 
went, he might very easily be a persona in grata where Court 
favour was concerned. "So that the good ship Democracy 
sails prosperously into Joppa, " he wrote at the time, "I 
care not whether my berth is in the officers' quarters or in 
the forecastle. Jones or Jonah it is all the same to me, and 
if I thought that my being thrown overboard would render 
the success of the voyage more certain, overboard I would go 
with pleasure — all the more as I can swim." But, in his 
siirmise as to why the Queen had objected to him he was mis- 
taken, and he did not know the real reason until several 
years afterwards. He imagined it was because he had so 
persistently protested against the Royal grants, whenever 



414 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

they had appeared to him excessive/ It is difficult to see 
why Mr. Gladstone, having told him as much as he did, did 
not tell him more — to wit, the actual facts. It would have 
been perfectly straightforward and perfectly consistent, and 
the explanation was one that Mr. Labouchere could have 
accepted with dignity, and all appearance of a slight put 
upon an eminent politician, by treating him as a nobody 
to be passed over without any kind of justification, would 
have been avoided. The fact of Mr. Labouchere's being 
the proprietor of and "chief writer " in Truth was the ground 
of the Queen's objection, and if my readers have followed 
the course of this biography with care, they will very easily 
be able to imagine how early, and also how very reasonably, 
the Queen's dislike to the publication had taken root. 

Mr. Labouchere's jest about Mr. Gladstone laying upon 
Providence the responsibility of always placing the ace of 
trumps up his sleeve was a good one. In one of his private 
letters I find the quip worded a little more pungently. 
"Who cannot refrain," he says, referring to the then Prime 
Minister, "from perpetually bringing an ace down his sleeve, 
even when he has only to play fair to win the trick. " Clearly 
in the case of the exclusion of Mr. Labouchere from his 
Cabinet, Mr. Gladstone had only to play a simple and 
straightforward game for the trick to be his. In fact, it 
was his with the Queen. There was no necessity for any 
further ruse, and the matter would have ended. 

' The following paragraph from one of Mr. Labouchere's Draft Reports, 
composed when he was member of a committee to investigate the whole 
question of Royal grants in 1891, shows how reasonable this surmise was: 

"In conclusion, your Committee desires to record its emphatic opinion, 
that the cost of the maintenance of the Members of the Royal Family is 
already so great, that under no circumstances should it be increased. In its 
opinion, a majority of Her Majesty's subjects regard the present cost of 
Royalty as excessive, and it deems it, therefore, most undesirable to prejudice 
any decisions that may be taken in regard to this cost, when the entire subject 
will come under the cognisance of Parliament, by granting, either directly 
or indirectly, allowances or annuities to any of the grandchildren of the 
Sovereign." 



EXCLUSION FROM THE CABIKET 415 

Mr. Labouchere, still in the dark about the reason of the 
slight put upon him, replied thus to one of his supporters at 
Northampton, who questioned him as to the fact that he 
was not included in the Cabinet. He seems to have 
made an effort to put the matter as well as he could for his 
leader: 

5 Old Palace Yard, Aug. 19, 1892. 

Dear Mr. Tonsley, — The Queen expressed so strong a feel- 
ing against me as one of her Ministers that, as I understand it, 
Mr. Gladstone did not think it desirable to submit my name to 
her. — Yours truly, 

Henry Labouchere. 

The following correspondence ensued. In reading it, 
it must always be borne in mind that Mr. Labouchere did 
not at that time know the precise grounds upon which he 
had been excluded from the Cabinet : 

Mr. Gladstone to Mr. Labouchere 

Ha WARDEN Castle, Aug. 22, 1892. 

Dear Mr. Labouchere, — My attention has been called to 
a letter addressed by you to Mr. Tonsley, and printed in the 
Times of to-day, and I have to assure you that the understanding 
which has been conveyed to you is not correct. I am alone 
responsible for recommendations submitted to Her Majesty 
respecting the tenure of political office, or of the absence of such 
recommendation in any given instance. I was aware of the high 
position you had created for yourself in the House of Commons 
and of the presumption which would naturally arise that your 
name could not fail to be considered on any occasion when a 
Government had to be formed. I gave accordingly my best 
consideration to the subject, and I arrived at the conclusion that 
there were incidents in your case which, while they testified to 
your energy and influence, were in no degree disparaging to your 
honour, but which appeared to me to render it unfit that I should 
ask your leave to submit your name to Her Majesty for a political 



4i6 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

office whichVould involve your becoming a servant of the Crown. 
— Believe me very faithfully yours, 

W. E. Gladstone. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Gladstone 

5 Old Palace Yard, Aug. 23, 1892. 

Dear Mr. Gladstone, — I beg to acknowledge your letter of 
yesterday's date, and to thank you for its kindly tone towards 
myself. I had been away from home, and only got it when it was 
too late to alter anything that I had written for this week's 
Truth upon the matter, as the paper goes to press on Tuesday 
at 12 o'clock. I feel sure that you will recognise that I have 
never asked you — directly or indirectly — for any post in your 
administration. I should indeed not have alluded publicly to the 
the matter, owing to its personal character, had it not been that 
the newspapers were discussing why I was not asked to become a 
member of your administration, the implication being that I had 
urged "claims," and that I resented their being ignored. I 
fully perceive the difficulty of your position, and, whilst I can- 
not admit that the Sovereign has a right to impose any veto on 
the Prime Minister that she has selected in the choice of his 
colleagues, I admire your chivalry in covering the Royal action by 
assuming the constitutional responsibility of a proceeding, in 
regard to which I must ask you to allow me to retain the con- 
viction that you were not a free agent. 

With respect to myself, it is a matter of absolute unimportance 
that I am not a servant of the Crown, or — as we Radicals should 
put it — an Executive servant of the Nation. The precedent, 
however, is a dangerous one, as circumstances might occur in 
which the Royal ostracism of some particular person from the 
public service might impair the efficiency of a Liberal Ministry 
representing views not in accordance with Court opinion. Of 
this there is no danger in the present case. My personality is 
too insignificant to have any influence on public affairs, and I am 
— if I may be allowed to say so — far too stalwart a Radical not 
to support an administration which I trust will secure to us 
Home Rule in Ireland ; true non-intervention abroad ; and many 
democratic reforms in the United Kingdom. My only regret 



EXCLUSION FROM THE CABINET 417 

is that the Liberal party has not seen its way to include many 
other and more drastic reforms in its programme, notably the 
abolition of the House of Lords and the Disendowment and 
Disestablishment of the Church of England. 

It will always be a source of pride to me that you thought me 
worthy of being one of your colleagues, and that, in regard to the 
incidents which rendered it impossible for you to act in accordance 
with this flattering opinion, you consider that they testify to 
my energy and influence, and are in no way disparaging to my 
honour. 

With the sincerest hope that you may long be preserved 
as the People's Minister, I have the honour to be yours most 
faithfully, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Gladstone to Mr. Labouchere 

Hawarden Castle, Aug. 25, 1892. 

Dear Mr. Labouchere, — I cannot hesitate to answer your 
appeal. At no time and in no form have I had from you any signi- 
fication of a desire for office. You do me personally more than 
justice. My note to you is nothing more nor less than a true 
and succinct statement of the facts as well as the constitutional 
doctrine which appHes to them. I quite agree with you that 
men in office are the political servants of the country, as well as 
of the Crown. There are incidents attaching to them in each 
aspect, and I mentioned the capacity which alone touched the 
case before me. — Believe me very faithfully yours, 

W. E. Gladstone. 

It would be idle to deny that the fact of not being in the 
Cabinet was, temporarily, a very great disappointment to 
Mr. Labouchere. Faithful Northampton forwarded to him, 
through the Executive of their Liberal Association, the 
following resolution, the sentiment and kindly feeling of 
which was appreciated to the full by Northampton's member: 
" That this Executive records its warmest praise for the bril- 
liant defences of democracy put forth by the senior member 
27 



4i8 HENRY LABOUCHEKE 

for Northampton, and rejoices at his fealty to the ties of 
party, notwithstanding the personal affront of unrequited 
services; and, further, it is more than satisfied that, by this 
tactical error, he continues free to serve the cause of the 
people, in which in the past he has so signally distinguished 
himself." It was to Northampton that Mr. Labouchere 
frankly expressed where the real sting of his treatment by 
his party lay: "Mr. Gladstone handsomely testified," he 
said, "that I had never asked for office. It is, however, one 
thing not to desire office, and another thing to be stigmatised 
as a political leper unfitted for it owing to incidents which, 
while testifying to my energy and influence are in no way 
disparaging to my honour."^ 

Mr. Labouchere spent his summer holiday as usual at 
Cadenabbia, and his mind soon resumed its equable habit of 
thought. The return of Sir Charles Dilke to the House of 
Commons had been a genuine pleasure to him, and he was in 
constant correspondence with him during his holiday, which 
he extended some weeks beyond its usual limits. His letters 
dealt largely with the, to him, all-absorbing subject of 
the renewal of the Triple Alliance. 

"Notwithstanding," he wrote on September 17, "the 
excitement about the Italian workmen in France (which has 
now cooled down) I very much doubt whether the King will 
be able for long to keep going the Triple Alliance. The 
customs Union with Austria has not been a success, and the 
taxes are so enormous that there must come a crash. The 
Socialists and the Anarchists are joined by many who 
simply want to live, and who put down the heavy taxation 
and the want of a market to the policy of the Government. 
As for the Army, it is not worth much, as they have depleted 
the line regiments of good men in order to form a few crack 
regiments. If the French were to play their cards well, they 
might soon force the King into a friendly understanding. I 

^ Letter to Mr. Fredk. Covington, Chainnan of the Northampton Liberal 
and Radical Association, Sept. 13, 1892. 



EXCLUSION FROM THE CABD^T 419 

wonder when Parliament will meet next year, if it sits until 
Xmas. I suspect that our revered leader is angling to be 
able to get south in January and possibly February. If 
he can he will dodge every question except H. R. " 

Another sentence from a letter to the same correspondent 
I cannot resist quoting. It is so easy to picture how very 
much he must have enjoyed reading the German and Italian 
papers to which he refers, for the details of the great Italian 
statesman's policy were almost like spelling-book knowledge 
to him. " I have been amused, " he wrote on September 10, 
"at the comments of the German and Italian papers upon Mr. 
Gladstone's declaration that Cavour would have been for 
Irish Home Rule. " Here is another charming letter written 
from Cadenabbia: "A man who is owned by a dog has a 
troublous time. I am owned by a child, who is owned by a 
dog. I have a daughter. This daughter insisted on my 
buying her a puppy which she saw in the arms of some dog 
stealer when we were at Homburg. My advice to parents is. 
Never allow your parental feelings to lead you to buy your 
daughter a dog, and then to travel about with daughter and 
dog. This puppy is the bane of my existence. Railroad com- 
panies do not issue through tickets for dogs. The un- 
fortunate traveller has to jump out every hour or so to buy a 
fresh ticket. I tried to hide the beast away without a ticket, 
but it always betrayed me by barking when the guard looked 
in. I tried to leave it at a station, but the creature (who 
adds blind fidelity to its other objectionable qualities) always 
turned up before the train started, affectionately barking 
and wagging its tail. The puppy, being an infant, is often 
sick, generally at the most undesirable moments for this sort 
of thing to happen. When it is not sick it is either hungry 
or thirsty, and it is very particular about its food. I find 
bones surreptitiously secreted in my pockets. I am told 
that they are for the puppy, and if I throw them away I am 
regarded as a heartless monster. Yesterday he ate a portion 
of my sponge. I did not interfere with him, for I had heard 



420 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

that sponges were fatal to dogs. It disagreed with him, but 
alas, he recovered. I take him out with me in boats, in the 
hope that he will leap into the lake, but he sticks to the boat. 
I am reduced to such a condition on account of this cur that 
I sympathise with Bill Sikes in his objection to being fol- 
lowed everywhere by his faithful dog. Am I doomed, I ask, 
to be for ever pestered with this animal? Will he never be 
lost, will he never be run over, will he recover from the dis- 
temper if fortune favours me by his having this malady? 
Never, I repeat, buy your daughter a dog, and travel with 
daughter and dog. " ^ 

Mr. Labouchere did not return to London before the 
middle of October. The question of foreign affairs inter- 
ested him unceasingly throughout Mr. Gladstone's fotirth 
administration. When the composition of Mr. Gladstone's 
Cabinet had been published in the continental papers, many 
comments had been made upon the appointment of Lord 
Rosebery to be Foreign Secretary, and the Temps published 
a pointed leading article on the subject. It declared that 
Lord Rosebery was regarded by many persons as the incarna- 
tion of Imperialism and Chauvinism, but it went on to re- 
assure its readers by saying that after all, as Mr. Gladstone 
would be so occupied with his Home Rule scheme and minor 
social questions, the hankerings of the Foreign Office after 
national glory would be suppressed. In any case, it added, 
Mr. Labouchere will, if necessary, criticise and protest 
against dangerous ardoiu*. The subject of Uganda occupied 
the English Parliament early in 1903, and Mr. Labouchere 
moved an amendment to the Address to the effect that he 
hoped that the Commissioner sent by Her Majesty to 
Uganda would effect the evacuation of that coimtry by the 
British South African Company without any further Imperial 
responsibility being inciu-red. He gave an account of how the 
treaty with the King of Uganda had been obtained, culled 
from Captain Lugard's own report. Captain Lugard ar- 

* Truth, September, 1892. 



EXCLUSION FROM THE CABINET 421 

rived in the country, he said, with a considerable force of 
Zanzibaris with breech-loaders and two Maxim guns. A 
warm discussion arose on many points. Some of the chiefs 
were for signing, but the King held back and giggled and 
fooled. He demanded time. "I replied, " reported Lugard, 
"by rapping the table and speaking loudly, and said he must 
sign now. I threatened to leave the next day if he did not, 
and possibly to go to his enemies. I pointed out to him that 
he had lost the southern half of his kingdom to the Germans 
by his delay, and that he would lose more if he delayed now. 
He was, I think, scared at my manner, and trembled very 
violently." . . . And so on. The speech was one of 
remarkable power. Although it covers over ten pages of 
Hansard, the reader's interest does not flag for an instant. 
It was replied to by the Prime Minister with appreciation 
and vigour. 

On February 13 Mr. Gladstone introduced his Home Rule 
Bill, ^ and the speech Mr. Labouchere made during the debate 
is his last utterance on the subject that I shall quote. He 
was true to his great leader to the very end, although that 
end had been extended to a date far beyond the period that 
might reasonably have been expected. It was a remarkable 
fact, said Mr. Labouchere, that in 1886 they were told that 
Home Rule would ruin Ireland and the proof was that securi- 
ties had gone down. They were now told that Home Rule 
would ruin Ireland because securities had gone up! As a 
matter of fact, balances at savings banks had gone up be- 
cause of certain Land Acts and Rent Acts, by which a good 
deal of money which used to go into the landlord's pockets 
now went into the savings bank. ... A matter like the 
Home Rule scheme was necessarily very complicated. They 
had two islands, one a large one and one a small one. The 

' The first reading took place on Feb. 20. It was passed through Com- 
mittee on July 27. After a scene of uproar it passed the House of Commons 
on Sept. 2, by a majority of 34. It was thrown out by the Lords on Sept. 9, 
by a majority of 378. 



422 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

object of the Bill was to enable them to produce such a state 
of things as would enable them to have a local Parliament 
in Ireland dealing alone with Irish matters, and a Parliament 
in England dealing with British local matters, and also with 
Imperial matters. It was very much like trying to put a 
square peg into a round hole. He quite agreed that the 
angles of the peg would remain. They could not get the fit 
geometrically perfect, but the great object was to get the best 
fit they could under the circumstances. It must always be 
remembered in this matter of Home Rule that they had to 
choose between two alternatives. After the Bill of 1886 
the Unionists went before the country saying that there was 
a third course, that of some species of local government. 
When they got into power where was the third course? It 
entirely disappeared. . . . The Duke of Devonshire had 
tried to terrify them the other night about the House of Lords, 
that the House was going to defend the liberties of the United 
Kingdom by running counter to the will of the people. For 
his part, he had never been strongly in favour of an assembly 
like the House of Lords. He could not understand why some 
six hundred gentlemen should interfere with the decisions of 
the representatives of the people. If they did they would 
find that additional force would be given to the intention of 
the democracy to put an end to their existence.^ It is 
interesting to note that in this, his last Parliament, the 
Prime Minister himself was converted to Mr. Labouchere's 
views on the Upper Chamber. When his Home Rule Bill 
was thrown out by the Lords, and his Parish Councils Bill 
maimed and emasculated, he came to the conclusion that 
there was a decisive case against the House of Lords. " Upon 
the whole, he argued," says Lord Morley, "it was not too 
much to say for practical purposes the Lords had destroyed 
the work of the House of Commons, unexampled as that 
work was in the time and pains bestowed upon it. 'I 
suggested dissolution to my colleagues in London, where half 

* Hansard, Feb. i6, 1893, vol. viii., Series 4. 



EXCLUSION FROM THE CABINET 423 

or more than half the Cabinet were found at the moment. 
I received by telegraph a hopelessly adverse reply. ' Reluc- 
tantly he let the idea drop, always maintaining, however, 
that a signal opportunity had been lost. " ^ 

In spite of Mr. Labouchere's activity during the winter 
of 1892-3 his health was not good. He suffered from con- 
stant colds and coughs, and his throat, too, was troublesome. 
The desire for change was upon him, and his mind went back 
to the happy days of his youth in America. He would have 
liked to be made Minister at Washington. The idea had 
occurred to him at Cadenabbia when some American friends 
had suggested to him how popular such an appointment would 
be on the other side of the Atlantic. The climate woiild have 
suited him, and, above all, the friction which was so inevi- 
table between him and the Cabinet would have been avoided. 
Washington was quite removed from any of those quarters 
of the globe where Mr. Labouchere's and Lord Rosebery's 
foreign policy might possibly come into collision. But his 
desire was not to be fulfilled. Perhaps naturally, Lord Rose- 
bery thought that his appointment to such an important post 
would look rather as if he were trying to get rid of a formid- 
able opponent, or at least as if he were trying to bribe him 
into silence. His refusal to grant Mr. Labouchere's request 
was unqualified, and Mr. Labouchere acknowledged the 
repulse, with his usual philosophic calm. "However," he 
wrote to Lord Rosebery, on December 8, 1892," as the matter 
rests with you, and as you are averse to the suggestion, I 
can only say that all is for the best in the best of worlds. " 

Mr. Gladstone resigned the Premiership on March 3, 
1894, and Lord Rosebery became Prime Minister. The life 
of the Liberal Government was short, and Mr. Labouchere 
soon found himself again in his native air of Opposition, 
when his old interest in Parliamentary matters revived. It 
was a matter of common knowledge that Mr. Labouchere was 
strongly opposed to the Premiership of Lord Rosebery, as 

' Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. iii. 



424 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

anyone possessed of his strong Radical nature was bound to 
be, but that he had anything to do with the snap division 
which ended Lord Rosebery's Ministry" is clearly contra- 
dicted by an interview which was published in the Glohe on 
the very day after the fall of the Ministry. The Glohe 
correspondent found Mr. Labouchere in the highest spirits 
smoking his "eternal cigarette" in his study at Old Palace 
Yard. "What do you think of the present condition of 
things?" he asked. 

"Well," replied Mr. Labouchere, "I have only just be- 
come aware of what happened. I was sitting on the terrace 
yesterday evening just about seven with Sir William Har- 
court, who was joking about the quietness of things, and 
saying it was a dull day without a crisis, when the division 
bell rang. I said, 'Great Heavens! What's that for? 
I want to get home to dinner.' With that I rushed into 
the division with Sir William, and really did n't know what 
it was about — you know you can get into the Lobby now 
direct by a special door. Well, having recorded my vote 
I hurried off to the theatre, and did n't wait to enter the 
House. Of course, if I had known what was going to happen 
I should have waited to see the row. I heard nothing of 
the affair until this morning, when I read it here," added 
Mr. Labouchere, pointing to the newpaper beside him. 

"I see," said the interviewer, "that you voted with the 
Government?" 

"Oh yes. I want less cartridges — not more, and any- 
thing in that direction gets my support. As far as I could 
see it was only a rag- tag division. " 

"Do you mean one of those dinner-time snatches, like 
your House of Lords amendment?"'' 

"Oh no, not even as good as that; just the swing of the 
pendulum. " ^ 

»The Government was defeated on the night of June 21, 1895, upon a vote 

taken in Committee on the Army Estimates. = The Globe, June 22, 1895. 

J On March 13, 1894, Mr. Labouchere had moved an amendment to the 



EXCLUSION FROM THE CABINET 425 

The question on South Africa was soon to agitate Eng- 
land, and all matters of lesser interest must be left now 
to show the impassioned part which Mr. Labouchere played 
in an affair which cannot be said even to-day to have found 
its final solution. 

Address, praying the Queen to withdraw the power of the Lords to veto Bills. 
The division was called during the dinner hour, when the House was compara- 
tively empty, and the Government were found to be in a minority of 2. 
Sir William Harcourt, who reproved Mr. Labouchere for the levity with which 
he approached a great constitutional question, got out of the dilemma by 
moving a new Address. 



CHAPTER XVI 
THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA 

ON Sunday, December 29, 1895, an armed force com- 
manded by Dr. Jameson and Captain Willoughby 
invaded the territory of the RepubHc of the Transvaal. 
The object of the Jameson Raid was to combine with a body 
of disaffected Englishmen, living at Johannesburg, in order 
to upset the Government of the Transvaal, and, thereby, to 
provoke the intervention of the neighbouring British Com- 
missioner, and so lead to the remission of the grievances of 
the Uitlander population. Such intervention, in the opinion 
of those responsible for the Raid, was not intended to result 
in the absorption of the South African Republic by the 
British Empire, though this point has never been made 
altogether clear. The English in Johannesburg, the Uit- 
landers as they were called in Dutch, failed, however, to meet 
the invaders, and Jameson and his men were captured with- 
out difficulty by the troops of the Republic, and were handed 
over to the Imperial Government to be tried and punished. 
Subsequently, a select Committee of the House of Commons 
was appointed to investigate the causes of the Raid. The 
Committee, which numbered amongst its members Mr. 
Labouchere, met for the first time on February 5, 1897. 
The directors of the British South Africa Company, Messrs. 
C. J. Rhodes, Jameson, Alfred Beit, Lionel Phillips, and 
Rutherford Harris, were represented by Counsel. Mr. La- 
bouchere frequently told me that he had never felt altogether 

426 



THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA 427 

satisfied with the composition of the Committee. There 
were not enough stalwart Radicals on it. It was composed 
as follows: Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, the Chancellor of the 
Exchequer, Mr. Chamberlain, the Attorney-General, Mr. 
Cripps, Sir W. Hart Dyke, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Wharton, Mr. 
George Wyndham, Sir William Harcourt, Sir Henry Camp- 
bell Bannerman, Messrs. John Ellis, Sidney Buxton, Blake, 
Labouchere, and Bigham (now Lord Mersey). Mr. Labou- 
chere found his chief support in Mr. Blake, but even he fell 
off towards the end, and the member for Northampton 
registered his solitary vote for the second reading of the 
alternative report with which he wished to replace that of 
the chairman. The chairman's report finally adopted by 
the Committee may be summarised as follows: 

" (i) Great discontent had for some time previous to the 
incursion existed in Johannesburg, arising from the griev- 
ances of the Uitlanders. 

" (2) Mr. Rhodes occupied a great position in South 
Africa; he was Prime Minister of Cape Colony, and, beyond 
all other persons, should have been careful to abstain from 
such a course as that which he adopted. As Managing 
Director of the British South Africa Company, as director of 
the De Beers Consolidated Mines and the Gold Fields of 
South Africa, Mr. Rhodes controlled a great combination 
of interests : he used his position and those interests to pro- 
mote and assist his policy. Whatever justification there 
may have been for action, on the part of the people of 
Johannesburg, there was none for the conduct of a person in 
Mr. Rhodes' position, in subsidising, organising, and stim- 
ulating an armed insurrection against the Government of 
the South African Republic, and employing the forces and 
resources of the Chartered Company to support such a 
revolution. He seriously embarrassed both the Imperial 
and Colonial Governments, and his proceedings resulted in 
the invasion of the territory of a state which was in friendly 
relations with Her Majesty, in breach of the obligation to 



428 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

respect the right to self-government of the South African 
RepubHc iinder the conventions between Her Majesty and 
that state. Although Dr. Jameson 'went in' without Mr. 
Rhodes' authority, it was always part of the plan that these 
forces should be used in the Transvaal in support of an insur- 
rection. Nothing could justify such a use of such a force, 
and Mr. Rhodes' heavy responsibility remains, although 
Dr. Jameson at the last moment invaded the Transvaal 
without his direct sanction. 

" (3) Such a policy once embarked upon inevitably in- 
volved Mr. Rhodes in grave breaches of duty to those to 
whom he owed allegiance. He deceived the High Commis- 
sioner representing the Imperial Government, he concealed 
his views from his colleagues in the Colonial Ministry and 
from the Board of the British South Africa Company, and 
led his subordinates to believe that his plans were approved 
by his superiors. 

" (4) Your Committee have heard the evidence of all the 
directors of the British South Africa Company, with the 
exception of Lord Grey. Of those who were examined Mr. 
Beit and Mr. Maguire alone had cognisance of Mr. Rhodes' 
plans. Mr. Beit played a prominent part in the negotiations 
with the Reform Union ; he contributed large sums of money 
to the revolutionary movement, and must share full respon- 
sibility for the consequences. 

" (5) There is not the slightest evidence that the late 
Commissioner in South Africa, Lord Rosmead, was made 
acquainted with Mr. Rhodes' plans. The evidence, on the 
contrary, shows that there was a conspiracy to keep all infor- 
mation on the subject away from him. The Committee 
must, however, express a strong opinion upon the conduct 
of Sir Graham Bower, who was guilty of a grave dereliction 
of duty in not communicating to the High Commissioner 
the information which had come to his knowledge. Mr. 
Newton failed in his duty in a like manner. 

" (6) Neither the Secretary of State for the Colonies nor 



THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA 429 

any of the officials of the Colonial Office received any 
information which made them, or should have made them 
or any of them, aware of the plot during its development. 

" (7) Finally, your Committee desire to put on record an 
absolute and unqualified condemnation of the Raid and of 
the plans which made it possible. The result caused for the 
time being grave injury to British influence in South Africa. 
Public confidence was shaken, race feeling embittered, and 
serious difficulties were created with neighbouring states."* 

It is impossible to quote even such a summary as I have 
just given of Mr. Labouchere's Draft Report. He began by 
indicating the difficulties under which the Committee 
laboured : 

"(i) Your Committee decided, in the first instance, to 
limit its inquiries into that portion of the matters submitted 
to it for investigation having relation to the Jameson Raid. 

"(2) A considerable amoimt of oral and documentary 
evidence has been placed before it. But its task was ren- 
dered difficult. Some of the witnesses, who were either 
cognisant of the Jameson plan, or who took part in the 
Jameson Raid, displayed an unwillingness to make a clean 
breast of all that they knew, and in many instances witnesses 
refused to answer questions that the Committee considered 
might properly be put to them. Lord Rosmead could not 
be called as a witness on account of ill health, although Mr. 
Rhodes had referred to him in his evidence as able to answer 
questions, to which that gentleman was not willing to reply. 
Documents of the greatest importance, in possession of one 
of the witnesses, were not forthcoming,^ nor was an oppor- 
tunity given to all the members of your Committee to exam- 
ine him as to the statement that he had made in evidence 
in connection with them, nor was he reported to your House 
for contumacy, with a view to your House taking action to 

' Times History of the War in South Africa, vol. i. 

»The Hawkesley telegrams. These were subsequently published in the 
Independence Beige. 



430 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

overcome it. It seemed probable from the evidence that 
much in regard to the document had been stated to the 
War Office, as a ground for its taking certain action with 
respect to the officers concerned in the Raid. But witnesses 
from that office were not examined as to these communica- 
tions. Although these documents were in the hands of his 
solicitor, who informed your Committee that Mr. Rhodes 
claimed them as his property, and would not allow him to 
produce them, no direct application was made to Mr. Rhodes 
by your Committee to allow them to be produced. Other 
documents of a similar character were secured by your 
Committee only after Mr. Rhodes had left the country. 
He was not, consequently, examined in regard to their 
or as tenor, to his action in respect to them. 

" (3) Owing to these causes your Committee cannot pre- 
tend to have become possessed of a perfect and full know- 
ledge of everything connected with the Jameson plan and the 
Jameson Raid. It has consequently only been able to weigh 
evidence against evidence, and to deduce from what has 
been submitted to it the inferences that seem to flow there- 
from."^ 

He proceeded to stigmatise, even more severely than the 
Report adopted by the Committee, the political conduct of 
Mr. Rhodes, for whom, in private, he had conceived con- 
siderable personal admiration. In paragraph 25 of Mr. 
Labouchere's Draft Report was this statement: "Your 
Committee is, however, of the opinion that they (Messrs. 
Rhodes and Beit) merit severe punishment. Mr. Rhodes is a 
Privy Councillor, he was a Cape Premier, and he was the 
autocrat of Rhodesia when the conspiracy that your Com- 
mittee has investigated was in preparation, and when it was 
sought to carry it out. He deceived his Sovereign, the 
Secretary of State for the Colonies, the High Commissioner 
of South Africa, the Governor of the Cape Colony, his 
colleagues in the Cape Cabinet, the Board of the Chartered 

^Report from the Select Committee on British South Africa, 1897. 



THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA 431 

Company, and the very persons whom he used as his instru- 
ments in his nefarious designs; and he abused the high 
positions which he held by engaging in a conspiracy, in a 
success of which his own pecuniary interests were largely 
involved, thus inflicting a slur on the hitherto unblemished 
honour of our public men at home and in our colonies. Mr. 
Beit is a German subject. In conjunction with Mr. Rhodes 
he fomented a revolution in a state in amity with us, and 
promoted an invasion of that state from British territory. 
These two men, the one a British statesman, the other a 
financier of German nationality, disgraced the good name 
of England, which it ought to be the object of all EngHshmen 
to maintain pure and undefiled. " 

The only other important point in Mr. Labouchere's 
Draft Report was that referring to the alleged complicity 
of the Colonial Office in the Raid. While Mr. Labouchere 
admitted that the evidence in no way showed that any such 
complicity had existed, he regretted that the question had not 
been probed to the bottom, ' ' because the slightest appearance 
of any indisposition to do this by your Committee may lead 
some persons erroneously to suppose that there may be some 
truth in the statements of witnesses connected with the Jame- 
son plan that the secret aims of Mr. Rhodes were more or less 
clearly revealed to Mr. Chamberlain and to Mr. Fairfield, " 

He expressed himself very strongly in the following article 
on the Chartered Company in Truth: 

If the events of the past week have not opened the eyes of 
Englishmen at large to the character of the patriots and heroes 
who have too long ruled the roost in South Africa, our boasted 
national common sense must indeed be a pitiful sham. What is 
the position? The South African Republic is a state originally 
brought into existence by the Boers treking from Cape Colony 
into the wilderness, and establishing themselves beyond what 
were then the limits of British colonisation. We tricked them 
once into surrendering their independence, merely reserving 
a suzerainty as against their right to conclude treaties with foreign 



432 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

states without our consent. But since that was done, gold was 
discovered within their territory, and this has led to the migra- 
tion of a vast number of English and men of other nationalities 
into the region where the Boer imagined that he was safe from 
pursuit. On the whole, these settlers, considering how unwel- 
come their presence must have been, have not been badly treated. 
The taxation is not excessive, and the condition of the mining 
industry is infinitely better than it is ever likely to be under 
the Chartered Company. Out of all those who have dabbled in 
Transvaal mining shares during the last year I wonder how many 
know the facts respecting the relation of the companies to the 
Government of the country. The Government charges on every 
mining claim a ground rent or royalty of ids. a month. To a 
company owning fifty claims this means a ground rent of £300 
a year — a very reasonable charge, when from thirty to sixty per 
cent, can be earned on the capital of the Company. As against 
this what do the Chartered Company charge? One half the net 
profits of all mines worked under their jurisdiction. This alone 
should teach shareholders of the Transvaal mines how little they 
have to gain from the overthrow of Boer Government by the 
Rhodes gang, and how thankful they may be for the course of 
events last week. 

The non-Boer population, however, at Johannesburg and 
elsewhere have a genuine grievance on the question of the fran- 
chise and other rights of citizenship. In order to maintain their 
exclusive sovereignty in the land the Boers insist upon a fifteen 
years' residence for full naturalisation. . . . The period is 
too long, and it would be prudent on the part of the Boers to 
reduce it. There is no reason to suppose that they would refuse 
to do so, were the demands of the Uitlanders advanced in a 
regular manner. . . . But even were the Boers ever so deaf 
to justice and so blind to their own interests as to meet the 
Uitlander case with an obstinate non possumus, what pretext 
does this afford for armed intervention by the Chartered Com- 
pany? A pretence it is true has been made that, before com- 
mencing their Raid, Jameson and his men resigned their positions 
under the Company; but even if such a form were gone through, 
it is obviously only a colourable pretence. The invading force 
was drilled, armed, and maintained by the Company. At its 



THE WAR m SOUTH AFRICA 433 

head was the administrator of the Company. On his staff was 
the Company's generalissimo. It took with it the ammunition, 
equipment, and horses of the Company. . , . Neither in the 
poHtical aims of the Uitlanders, nor the position of the Johannes- 
burgers was there a shadow of justification for Jameson's Raid. 
.... The proceedings bear their character on their face 
and are of a piece with all that has gone before in the history of 
the Company. The design was to play the Matabele coup again 
on a bigger field. What was the origin of the Raid on Lobengula? 
The Company had obtained Lobengula's permission to occupy 
Mashonaland and dig there for gold, and had no further right 
beyond this. When occupied, Mashonaland was found to have 
no paying gold. The shares of the Company were unsalable 
rubbish. A pretext was therefore found for making war on Loben- 
gula and seizing Matabeleland — a pretext as transparently dis- 
honest as the pretext for the invasion of the Transvaal. All the 
circumstances showed in that case as in this, that the coup had 
been carefully prepared long beforehand. When the train had 
been laid, a quarrel was picked with the Matabele, who had entered 
Mashonaland at the Company's request, and they were attacked 
and shot down by this same Jameson while doing their best to 
retire in obedience to his orders. Instantly the whole of the 
Company's forces, all held in readiness, entered Matabeleland 
under the pretence that the Matabele and not the Company were 
the aggressors. Lobengula's savages were mowed down by 
thousands with Maxims. Those who were taken prisoners were 
killed off to save trouble. The envoys sent by the King to try 
and make terms were barbarously murdered. The King himself 
fled and died before he could be captured. His territory and the 
flocks and herds of his people were parcelled out among the 
Company and the band of freebooters who had been collected 
by promises of loot. One million new shares were created by 
Jameson's principals and colleagues, and, in the subsequent boom, 
shares were unloaded on the British public at prices ranging up to 
£8 per share. Matabeleland, however, has proved no richer in 
paying gold than Mashonaland. The shares have been going 
down again. What were the Chartered gang to do next? In 
the Transvaal there are extensive paying gold mines, and money 
which the gang would like to pocket is going elsewhere. Forth- 

28 



434 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

with the Chartered Company's forces are marshalled again. A 
sudden and obviously factitious agitation springs up at Johannes- 
burg. Rumours of deadly peril to the alien population are put 
in circulation, goodness knows whence. The women and children 
are packed off — so it is said, but no one knows why or at whose 
instigation. Simultaneously a message imploring aid from the 
quaking citizens reaches Jameson, no one knows how, and in a 
moment the fighting doctor and his bold buccaneers are once 
more over the border. There, however, all resemblance between 
the two coups ends. The Chartered heroes have not to deal 
this time with naked half-armed savages, but with white men as 
well armed as themselves, and as well able to use their arms. 
There are Maxim guns on the other side this time and Krupp 
guns as well. Result : after a few hours' fighting, the conquerors 
of Matabeleland are killed or taken prisoners, and the doughty 
Jameson and his staff are lodged in Pretoria Gaol. I have no 
desire to exult over their fate. It is a shameful and abominable 
business all round, out of which no Englishman can extract a 
grain of satisfaction. But if ever men died with their blood on 
their own heads, they are the men who fell in this raid, and if 
ever prisoners of war deserved scant mercy, Jameson and his 
comrades are those prisoners. They may thank their stars that 
they have fallen into the hands of men who are not likely to treat 
them as they themselves treated the Matabele wounded and 
prisoners, ^ 

He continued his attack in a serious of articles. The 
bufden of his argument was always the impiirity of motive 
arising from the financial interest involved. "What a 
comment on our morality," he writes on April 2, "has been 
our action during the last few months ! We quarrelled with 
the Americans about Venezuela about a bog in which we 
fancied there might be gold ; we remain in Egypt because we 
are looking after the interest on Egyptian bonds, and finding 
salaries for a herd of English employees ; we are engaged in 
a Soudan Expedition because Dongola is fertile, and its pos- 
session will afford a plea to us to violate our pledges to leave 

' Truth, Jan. 9, 1896. 



THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA 435 

Egypt; we are disputing with President Kruger because he 
has fallen out with a crew of company mongers; we are 
backing up a company in Rhodesia because its shares have 
been put up to a high premium on the Stock Exchange. 
But, pledged as we are to see that there is good government 
in Armenia, we are supinely looking on whilst Armenian men 
are being slaughtered, Armenian women ravished, and 
Armenian villages burnt. Why? Because there is no 
money to be made in protecting Armenians, and our finan- 
ciers have no interests in Armenia."^ 

Mr. Labouchere thought, rightly or wrongly, that the 
Imperialism of Mr. Rhodes was little more than a mask to 
cover the desire for financial expansion. Not that he thought 
badly of Mr. Rhodes personally. He thought that he 
deceived himself in perfectly good faith. While he detested 
his aims, he could not help admiring the energy and skill with 
which they were promoted, and something simple and direct 
in the character of the man himself. 

The estimate I had formed of Mr. Labouchere's opinion 
of Mr. Rhodes as a private individual was recently confirmed 
by the following extract from a letter which I received from 
Mr. Charles Boyd containing a reminiscence of an interview 
he had with Mr. Labouchere in 1897: 

That was the year [he wrote] of the British South Africa 
Commission of which he (Mr. Labouchere) was a member, and 
which, as George Wyndham's Secretary, I regularly attended; 
he was, of course, very much "over the way," in Mr. Jaggers's 
sense, to what one may call the Imperialist view of the South 
African question. It was, I think, in May, or, at all events, near 
the end of the sitting of the Commission, that I conceived the 
spirited notion of offering myself for the post of Imperial Secre- 
tary to the High Commissioner for South Africa, Sir Alfred 
Milner, then recently appointed; though without official experi- 
ence, I had some good backers on the strength of some little 

' Truth, April 2, 1896. 



436 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

study of the South African problem. Among these was one of 
the kindest of men, the late Mr. Moberley Bell, manager of the 
Times, with whom one morning I sat in his house in Portland 
Place considering that forlorn hope, as it most properly proved 
to be of my ambition. "The only thing is," said Mr. Bell, 
"what are you going to do with Labby? You know you are 
a child of the opposite camp." I agreed with gloom that, if I 
had any chance, and Mr. Labouchere "took notice," my ante- 
cedents might not be a recommendation. The imperial South 
African Association was then about a year old, and active and 
formidable enough to have caught the eye of Truth. Mr. Bell, 
leaning his big head on his big hand, had a benevolent inspiration. 
"If I were you," he said, "I 'd jump into the nearest hansom 
and drive straight to 5 Old Palace Yard. It 's a sort of move he 
may quite well love. You will be 'squaring Labby,'" and Mr. 
Bell dismissed me with his blessing. Yet a little and somewhat 
nervous-like I stood in the presence of your Uncle, in that wonder- 
ful room which you will so well remember giving on the green turf 
of the Abbey precincts. I stated my case, and displayed one or 
two testimonials, including that of his friend Sir Charles Dilke. 
"And now," said I indignantly, "if I do have any chance, I 
am told that I am in danger of Truth. " "Nothing of the kind, " 
said Mr. Labouchere. "I have, to begin with, a considerable 
admiration for George Wyndham, and, as for yourself, your having 
the nerve to come straight to me is sufficient proof of your fitness 
for the Imperial Secretaryship or for anything else, " and with 
a graceful movement of his wrist he disengaged some cigarettes 
from a sort of gilded network basket of the same, which depended 
from the wall, and bade me sit down and smoke. He talked of 
the Commission, and asked me what I thought of the evidence 
of Mr. Rhodes, with whom, of course, he had considerably crossed 
swords, not to say whom he had bated. I expressed, possibly with 
an air of defiance, an extreme sense of Mr. Rhodes' candour. 
"But bless you," said Mr. Labouchere, "I know all that as 
well as you. I like Rhodes, I like his porter and sandwiches. 
An entirely honest, heavy person. On the other hand, did you 

ever see anything so fatuous as the performance of H ?" 

Presently he returned to my candidature, and said, "I 'd better 
write you a testimonial myself, and that will allay your fears. . . " 



THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA 437 

As is well known, the troubles of South Africa did not 
come to an end with the settlement of the Jameson Raid. 
The aggrieved Uitlanders had not availed themselves, when 
it came to the point, of Dr. Jameson's action, and their 
unredressed grievances — that they suffered from serious 
grievances was admitted even by Mr. Labouchere — ^festered 
in their minds and produced, as time went on, deeper and 
more widespread dissatisfaction. Nor was the appointment 
in 1897 of Sir Alfred (now Lord) Milner as British Governor 
of Cape Colony and High Commissioner for South Africa 
by Mr. Chamberlain, who had taken office imder Lord 
Salisbury as Colonial Secretary, calculated to allay the 
resentment of the Boers, his Imperialist sympathies being 
well known. Towards the end of 1898, Sir Alfred Milner 
left South Africa for England. He was away for three 
months, and during his absence several things occurred to 
hasten the unfortunate crisis — the outbreak of war. Gen- 
eral Sir William Butler had been selected to fill the chief mili- 
tary command in South Africa, left vacant by the sudden death 
of Sir William Goodenough. Sir William Butler, immediately 
on his arrival in South Africa, allowed his sympathy with the 
Afrikander party to be very apparent. He was convinced 
that the English population of the Transvaal had no real griev- 
ances, and were only striving to make mischief. When Sir 
Alfred Milner returned to the Cape, on February 14, 1899, he 
was faced by a very different situation to the one he had left. 
In almost all the towns of Cape Colony and Natal meetings had 
been held by the Colonists protesting against the continua- 
tion of the existing state of affairs in the Transvaal, and de- 
manding the intervention of the Imperial Government . Dutch 
feeling was no less agitated. Among the extreme section of 
Afrikanders everywhere a movement was on foot for the form- 
ation of a National League which should bind together all 
Afrikanders in strenuous opposition to any attempt of the 
Imperial power to intervene in South African affairs. * 

' Times' History of the War in South Africa, vol. ii. 



438 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

In England, tne first indication of what was coming was 
revealed to the discerning public who read Parliamentary 
reports by the publication of the army estimates, in which a 
sum not exceeding £1,211,900 was asked for to cover the 
miHtary expenses (March, 1899-March, 1900). Mr. Dillon 
asked why it was considered necessary to increase so enorm- 
ously our forces in South Africa. The Colonial Secretary 
(Mr. Chamberlain) replied to the effect that the Transvaal 
Republic, which borders on the colony of Natal and Cape 
Colony, had enormously increased their offensive or defensive 
forces within the last few years. They had spent large sums 
in forts, artillery, and rifles, and millions of cartridges had 
been imported. Therefore, as long as the British Govern- 
ment was responsible for the peace in South Africa, a like 
increase of warlike preparation was necessary on our part. 
Mr. Labouchere replied aptly that the increased defensive 
measures adopted by the Boers had only followed upon the 
scandalous and outrageous raid which had been made upon 
their country by the minions of the Chartered Company. 
Then a paragraph appeared in the Times to the effect that 
the Commander-in-Chief had been engaged in completing the 
organisation and composition of the "larger force which it 
will be necessary to dispatch to South Africa in the event of 
the negotiations at present in progress with the Govern- 
ment of the Transvaal proving unsuccessful." Mr. La- 
bouchere asked, on July 7, whether the officers mentioned in 
this communique as going to South Africa to organise the 
forces, were to go into Cape Colony and into Natal to organ- 
ise them, and, if so, whether it was with the consent of the 
Ministers of those Colonies? To which question Mr. Bal- 
four replied " I do not know. " ^ 

On October 17, Mr. Dillon moved an amendment to the 
Address in answer to the Queen's Speech, praying for arbitra- 
tion to settle the difficulties between the two Governments, 
so that "an ignominious war may be avoided between the 

I Hansard, vol. 74, July 7, 1899. 



THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA 439 

overwhelming forces of your Majesty's Empire and those of 
two small nations numbering in all less than 200,000 souls. " 
Mr. Labouchere seconded the amendment, and pleaded 
eloquently for arbitration, suggesting President McKinley 
as the best arbitrator possible. The peroration of his speech 
was excellent, but, alas, it fell at the time upon ears already 
eagerly alert for no other sounds than the music of triumph- 
ant victory and glorious marches home after a course of 
deeds of valour, which the mere fact of British nationality 
was to render as easy of achievement as an afternoon's foot- 
ball. It reads now with a different ring, and testifies to the 
spirit of justice and temperance which were so characteristic 
of all his policy in those crises when the English nation gets 
stirred up, as it sometimes does, to a spirit of hysterical 
enthusiasn, in comparison with which the excitability and 
nervous agitation of the "foreigner" is a mere joke. "I 
confess that I feel very sorry for the end of these unfortunate 
Boers," he said. "They are fathers of families, they are 
farmers, honest and ignorant if you like. They are fighting 
for that which they believe to be the holiest and most noble 
of causes — their homesteads and their country. We must all 
regret that their country is not only turned into a battlefield, 
but that a number of these men, the breadwinners of families, 
will be slain. For my part, I cannot accept the responsibility 
of contenting myself with merely washing my hands of an in- 
justice like this. It might be a very politic thing to say : * There 
is a feeling in favour of war ; I protest against it, but I wash my 
hands of it, and shall criticise hereafter the conduct of the 
Colonial Secretary. ' I have not criticised the conduct of the 
right hon. gentleman in this matter except indirectly, because 
that is not the question of the moment. The question is to 
do the best we can to put an end to this war, and that is why I 
have seconded, and why I would venture to urge the House 
to agree to the amendment which has been moved, because 
then the war would cease in a very few days. " ^ 

^ Hansard, vol. 77, Oct. 17, 1899. 



440 HENllY LABOUCHERE 

On October 20, Mr. Labouchere pointed out that, although 
the total cost of our army is £22,000,000, we are "positively " 
spending £10,000,000 in sending troops to South Africa." 
He added, with some truth, that, as the Government had a 
majority, to ask the House to vote against these proceedings 
was useless. But he declared that, in his opinion, before 
the war was over, it would cost the country a hundred mil- 
lions. A burst of laughter and ironical cheering from the 
Ministerialists greeted the statement of the member for 
Northampton. They all imagined that BuUer would be in 
Pretoria before Christmas, and that there would even be 
some change out of the ten millions voted. What a chill 
would have fallen over that light-hearted assembly if some 
hand had written on the wall at that moment the real sum 
which the South African enterprise so gaily entered upon 
would cost the nation! Something well over two hundred 
millions did not cover it. ^ 

In March 1900, the War Loan Bill raising a sum of thirty- 
five millions was passed through both Houses of Parliament. 
The events of the war which had taken place by this time 
were, briefly, these: The British dispatch which led up to 
the Boer ultimatum was presented in Pretoria on September 
25, and the mobilisation of the Boers commenced on the 27th. 
The Transvaal ultimatum was presented to the British agent 
on October 9, and the war began upon the nth. At the 
end of the first fortnight the English claimed the victories 
of Talana and Elandslaagte, whilst the Boers could boast 
that they had swept the whole of Natal down to Ladysmith. 
At Pretoria there was great jubiliation, and the highest 
expectations of success for the farmers' arms were enter- 
tained. Before Christmas the defeats of Nicholson's Nek, 
Stormberg, Magersfontein, and Colenso had plunged Eng- 
land into depths of gloom. The investment of Ladysmith 
had been completed, and the first stage of the war marked by 
the advance of the Boers into British territory was over. 

' Henry W. Lucy, The Balfourian Parliament. 



THE WAR m SOUTH AFRICA 441 

On the 22nd of December, Lord Roberts had set sail from 
Southampton to the Cape. To him the British Government 
had turned in its hour of need to restore the shaken prestige 
of the British army and to bring the war to a successful conclu- 
sion. Their confidence was justified, though the conclusion 
of the war was still far distant. The horrible disaster of 
Spion Kop occurred in January, but the middle of March saw 
Lord Roberts in Bloemfontein. Ladysmith and Kimberley 
had been relieved, and the whole vast territory south of these 
points was in uncontested occupation of the British troops. 

In Mr. Labouchere's speech of March 13, on the occasion 
of the second reading of the War Loan Bill, he had pleaded 
eloquently for a cessation of hostilities in South Africa. 
The Boers, he said, had now been driven out of British 
territory, but the only terms upon which the British Govern- 
ment would make peace were degrading to a brave and honest 
people, namely the surrendering of their independence, and 
the blotting of their nationality out of existence. "Can 
you tell me of any war, " he asked, "in which the vanquished 
side asked for terms and were told that the victors would grant 
terms only in the capital of the defeated country, and on 
condition of their surrendering their independence? I call 
this thing an iniquity, and a disgrace to this country to pro- 
pose such terms. Perhaps the question of iniquity does not 
appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite. It is not only a crime — 
it is a blunder. I do not believe this is a way to establish peace 
and harmony and good feeling in South Africa. . . . You are 
at present appealing to the lowest passions outside of this 
House. I do not believe you will succeed in the long run ; it 
may be that the people will be carried away by the feeling 
which at present exists among Englishmen, but they will soon 
see that they have been fooled into this war by the vilest body 
of financiers that ever existed in this world, and that the oppor- 
tunity had been taken to lay hold of the territory and gold, 
which Lord Salisbury himself boasted we did not wish for. " ^ 

^ Hansard, vol. 80, March 13, 1900. 



442 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

There is no doubt that Mr. Labouchere was extremely 
unpopular in England during 1900. It was difficult for the 
man in the street to separate his political attitude, with 
regard to the war, from that of the Irish Nationalists, with 
whose policy he had been so long identified, and who wel- 
comed the war as supplying fresh food for their campaign 
of denunciation against the British Government, and who 
openly expressed their exultation at the Boer successes. Mr. 
Labouchere did not rejoice at the British humiliation. The 
point that he always had in view was the prevention of 
more bloodshed, and the injustice of the annexation of new 
territory by the force of numerical superiority. Further, he 
considered that the negotiations which took place in the 
summer and autumn of 1899, before the outbreak of war, 
had not been carried on with fairness towards the Boers. 
After the President of the Transvaal Republic had agreed to 
a seven years' Franchise Law, retrospective in its action, for 
the colonists, Mr. Chamberlain took exception to a provision 
of the new Bill, which required that the alien desirous of 
burghership should produce a certificate of continuous 
registration during the period for naturalisation. He sug- 
gested further that the details of the scheme should be dis- 
cussed by delegates appointed by Sir Alfred Milner and the 
Transvaal Government (July 27). The Transvaal Govern- 
ment, as it had a perfect right to do, instead of immediately 
accepting Mr. Chamberlain's suggestion, submitted alterna- 
tive proposals to the British Government, which gave most 
liberal concessions to the Uitlanders, the details of which were 
to be discussed with the British agent at Pretoria. To these 
proposals were attached certain conditions, one of which was 
that "Her Majesty's Government will not insist further upon 
the assertion of suzerainty, the controversy on the subject 
being tacitly allowed to drop" (August 19). Mr. Conyng- 
hame Greene, the British agent at Pretoria, wired the Boer 
proposals and conditions to Sir Alfred Milner. Sir Alfred 
Milner wired to Mr. Conynghame Greene in reply: "If 



THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA 443 

the South African Republic should reply to the invitation 
to a joint enquiry put forward by Her Majesty's Govern- 
ment by formally making the proposals described in your 
telegram, such a course would not be regarded by Her 
Majesty's Government as a refusal of their offer, but they 
would be prepared to consider the reply of the vSouth African 
Republic on its merits. " 

In Mr. Labouchere's opinion, it was at this point of the 
negotiations that the disingenuousness of Mr. Chamberlain's 
action was most apparent. The formal reply of Her Ma- 
jesty's Government to the Boer proposals was delivered on 
August 30. It declared that the Boer proposals were 
accepted, but that the British Government utterly refused 
to consider the conditions attached to them. It was obvious 
now that the Boers had no other course open to them but to 
fall back upon the Commission proposed by Mr. Chamber- 
lain on July 27, and to which their proposals and conditions 
were the alternative, and, according to Sir Alfred Milner's 
wire to Mr. Conynghame Greene, understood by both Gov- 
ernments as such. On September 2, therefore, they asked 
for further information as to the Joint Committee which 
they were now par force majeure and faute de mieux pre- 
pared to accept. The reply they received on September 12 
was that "H. M. Government have been compelled to 
regard the last proposal of the Government of the South 
African Republic as unacceptable in the form in which it was 
presented"; that they "cannot now consent to go back to 
the proposal for which those in the note of the Government 
of the Republic of August 19 are intended as a substitute"; 
and that, if those proposals of the Transvaal Government, 
taken by themselves and without the conditions attached 
by that Government, are not agreed to, "H. M. Government 
must reserve to themselves the right to reconsider the situa- 
tion de novo and to formulate their own proposals for a final 
settlement." On September 15, the Secretary of State of 
the Transvaal Republic replied that he learned with deep 



444 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

regret of the withdrawal of the invitation to a joint enquiry. 
The proposal of August 19, made by him in the name of his 
Government, involved the danger of affecting the independ- 
ence of the Republic, but his Government had set against 
this danger the advantage of obtaining the assurances men- 
tioned in the conditions. He protested against the injustice 
of being asked to grant the original proposals without the 
conditions annexed, and he could not understand Mr. 
Chamberlain's present refusal to accept the Commission 
which was his own alternative. The reply of the Republic 
consequently was that it could not grant the first half of the 
August 19 offer without the second, but would accept the 
Joint Commission which had been proposed by Mr. Cham- 
berlain; that it welcomed the introduction of a Court of 
Arbitration, and was willing to help in its formation, but that 
it was not clear what were the subjects mentioned as outside 
the Court of Arbitration, and it deprecated the foreshadow- 
ing of new proposals without specification. Mr. Reitz 
finally implored the acceptance of the Joint Commission, 
as "if H. M.'s Government are willing and able to make this 
decision it will put an end to the present state of tension, race 
hatred would decrease and die out, the prosperity and welfare 
of the South African Republic and of the whole of South 
Africa would be developed and furthered, and fraternisation 
between the different nationalities would increase." On 
September 25 Mr. Chamberlain replied that no conditions 
less comprehensive than the final offer of H. M. Government 
could be relied upon to effect the object for which they had 
been striving. The dispatch concluded with these words: 
"H. M. Government will communicate to the High Com- 
missioner the result of their deliberations in a later dis- 
patch." On September 30 the British agent at Pretoria 
telegraphed by request of the Secretary of State of the 
Republic to ask what decision had been taken by the British 
Government. Mr. Chamberlain replied on October 2 
that "the dispatch of H. M. Government is being prepared 



THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA 445 

but will not be ready for some days." In the meantime 
Parliament had been summoned to grant supplies, the Re- 
serves were called out, and ships were chartered to convey 
all available troops to South Africa. From September 27 
to October 8 the President of the Orange Free State tele- 
graphed frequently to Sir Alfred Milner. He complained 
of the concentration of troops on the frontiers of his State 
and of the Transvaal, again and again proferred his good 
offices to avoid all possibility of war, and in almost every 
telegram urged that Her Majesty's Government should at 
once make known the "precise nature and scope of the con- 
cessions or measures, the adoption whereof Her Majesty's 
Government consider themselves entitled to claim, or which 
they suggest as being necessary or sufficient to secure a 
satisfactory and permanent solution of existing differences 
between them and the South African Republic, whilst at the 
same time providing a means for settling any others that may 
arise in the future. " To this request Sir Alfred Milner made 
no reply. ^ On October 9 the famous Ultimatum was pre- 
sented to the British agent at Pretoria. Amongst other plain 
statements it contained words to the effect that the Trans- 
vaal felt obliged to regard the military force in the neigh- 
bourhood of its frontiers as a threat against the Republic, 
and that it became necessary to ask Her Majesty's Govern- 
ment to give an assurance that no further troops should be 
landed in South Africa, that troops on the borders of the 
Republic should be withdrawn either by friendly arbitration 
or some other amicable way. In the event of a refusal the 
Secretary of State of the Transvaal must regard the action 
of Her Majesty's Government as a formal declaration of war. 
War broke out, as has been said, on October 11. 

When Lord Roberts marched triumphantly into Pretoria 
on the 9th of June, some important letters were found in 
the capital of the Transvaal out of which great political 
interest was made against the group of Englishmen, of 

' Truth, Sept. 13, 1899. 



446 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

whom Labouchere was one of the most important, who were 
known as the "little Englanders" in contradistinction to 
the ever growing numbers of "Imperialists. " These letters 
were sent to Mr. Chamberlain, and a correspondence on the 
subject ensued between him and Mr. Labouchere. Mr. 
Labouchere published the whole of it in Truth, prefacing the 
letters with the following remarks:^ 

"The correspondence which I print below speaks for itself. 
I had not supposed that I was one of the three M. P.'s whose 
letters had fallen into the hands of Mr. Chamberlain, as I do 
not think that I ever wrote to any one in Pretoria. But I did, 
before the war, both write and talk to Mr. Montagu White, the 
Transvaal representative in London, and it would seem that he 
sent some of my letters to Pretoria. What there is requiring 
explanation in either my conversations or correspondence I do 
not know. The advice which I gave to Mr. White was that his 
Government should make reasonable concessions, and should 
gain time, in order to tide over the false impression created by 
Mr. Chamberlain's appeal to the passions which had been excited 
by statements in regard to Boer rule derived from the 'kept' 
Rhodesian press in South Africa and the correspondents of the 
English newspapers, who were nearly all connected with that 
' kept press ' and with the Rhodes gang. Had my advice been 
followed, there would have been no war. The difficulty which 
stood in the way of its being adopted was that President Kruger 
and other leading Boers were fully convinced that Mr. Chamber- 
lain had been in the counsels of the Jameson-Rhodes conspirators 
of 1895, 3-^^ that — no matter what concessions the Transvaal 
might make — he was determined to have his revenge for Presi- 
dent Kruger having got the better of him on that occasion. " 

Here is the correspondence: 

Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Labouchere 

Colonial Office, Aug. 6, 1900. 

Sir, — I beg to call your attention to the enclosed copy of a 
letter from Mr. Montagu White, with copies of two letters pur- 

'^ Truth, Aug. 23, 1900. 



THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA 447 

porting to have been written by you, and to inquire if you desire 
to offer any explanations or observations with regard to them. — 
I am, Sir, Your obedient, 

J. Chamberlain. 

(Enclosure) Mr. Montagu White to Dr. Reitz^ 

58 Victoria Street, London, 
Aug. 4, 1899 

Dear Dr. Reitz, — I feel tired and done for to-night. It is 
past six o'clock and I still have forty miles to go before I get home. 
My inclination is to wire to you, asking you to tell the British 
Government to go to the devil and to do their " darnedest. " It 
is perfectly sickening the way one is kept in a continual state 
of suspense and nervous excitement. Everything is as quiet as 
possible on the surface, and there has been a tremendous decrease 
in press cuttings which is a sure sign that matters are relapsing 
into a normal condition. But I have been able to judge of the 
effect upon our friends of hints that we may not be able to accept 
the proposed Commission. Without exception, they are one and 
all dead against our refusing it, and all agree that we shall have to 
face a very serious crisis if we refuse the proposal, and that with- 
out the friendly support of the majority of the newspapers which 
have hitherto been on our side. Spender of the Chronicle, who 
has fought consistently and well for us, tells me that none of them 
can understand in what way we shall be worse off for accepting 
the Commission, for (if) your people disagree about the finding 
of the report what can Mr. Chamberlain do further? Even our 
best friends say that by rejecting the report of the Industrial 
Commission two years ago, we have allowed things to go so far 
that it is unwise to talk of intermeddling in our home affairs as 
a refusal to entertain what public opinion here endorses as a fair 
proposal. The essence of friendly advice is : Accept the proposal 
in principle, point out how difficult it will be to arrive at a satis- 
factory conclusion as to statistics, etc., and how undesirable it 
would be to have a miscarriage of the Commission. In other 
words : gain as much time as you can, and give the public time 
here to get out of the dangerous frame of mind which Chamber- 

' Secretary of State of the Transvaal Republic. 



448 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

Iain's speeches have created. Spender is of opinion that after 
two months' delay all danger will have vanished. I cannot say 
I share his optimistic views, for this sort of thing has been going 
on for three years. Labouchere said to me this morning : " Don't 
for goodness sake, let Mr. Kruger make his first mistake by refus- 
ing this; a little skilful management, and he will give Master 
Joe another fall. " He further said : "You are such past masters 
in the art of gaining time, here is an opportunity; you surely 
have n't let your right hands lose their cunning, and you ought 
to spin out the negotiations for quite two or three months. " I 
must leave off now. Please remember one thing: I do not send 
you my advice. I send you the opinions of friends and the 
tendency of public feeling here. 

Some one sent me some lines parodying R. Kipling's Lest We 
Forget. I got it published in Truth. — Yours very truly, 

Montagu White. 

(Enclosure) Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Montagu White 

5 Old Palace Yard, S.W., Aug. 2, 1899. 

Dear Mr. Montagu White, — You will see the lines in 
Truth. I have altered one or two words to make the grammar all 
right. I do hope that President Kruger will manage to accept 
in some form or another the reference (proposed conference). 
Bannerman and all our Front Bench believe that it is only a way 
devised by the Cabinet to let Joe climb down. The new Franchise 
Act stands. The onus probandi of showing that it does not give 
substantial representation to the Uitlanders and yet leave the 
Boers masters is with Chamberlain. The difference between five 
and seven years is not a ground for proof. The details for regis- 
tration do not prove it. Let President Kruger quote our Regis- 
tration Laws, which you had better send him, and do not forget 
that a lodger has to register every year ; he is not automatically 
on the Franchise list. In connection with this, Milner suggested 
in his dispatch six years. He afterwards said that six was a 
mistake for five. But Chamberlain in his reply approved of six. 
It is impossible to calculate the effect without knowing how many 
Outlanders there are, and how long each has been in the country. 
To discover the basis of inquiry would take a long time. As the 



THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA 449 

decision would go by the majority, the question would be on the 
Chairman, who would have a casting vote. Surely it could be 
arranged with Natal; the Cape and the Orange Free State, as 
well as the Transvaal, should be represented, with the Chairman 
an Englishman who has not yet expressed an opinion. 

My own impression is that comparatively few will ever become 
Boers amongst the English; they will not like to give up their 
nationality. The President has a great opportunity to give Joe 
another fall. If at the same time the Dynamite Concession is 
abrogated there will be a rise in many shares, and this will be 
regarded as a barometer that everything is going on well and 
satisfactorily. The great thing is to gain time. In a few months 
we shall be howling about something in another part of the world. 
— Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

( Enclosure) Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Montagu White 

5 Old Palace Yard, S. W., Aug. 4, 1899. 

Dear Mr. White, — It is the general opinion that Chamber- 
lain ' * climbed down . " As Bannerman put it to me : ' ' His speech 
was a little bluster of his own with the main parts arranged by his 
colleagues, and they sat by like policemen to see that he read 
them. " As a matter of fact he did read all the important parts. 

If the President agrees to the Committee it will, under clever 
tactics, take months to settle conditions, and then it will take 
further months to come to a decision. If the basis is established 
that there shall be a substantial representation of the Uitlanders, 
yet not such as can endanger the majority of the Boers, no harm 
can well come of the Commission. The only difficulty is that 
it is a sort of recognition of our right to meddle. But this might 
be avoided in two ways : (i ) By getting Schreiner into it and mak- 
ing it a sort of South African affair; (2) by making a bargain and 
agreeing only on the understanding that there should be arbitra- 
tion on all matters affecting the true reading of the Convention. 
But if the latter is proposed then the President should put in 
some proposal for the Chief Justices and one Imperial Judge or 
Governor to be the tribunal. 

The universal opinion is that the Cabinet has forced all this 
29 



450 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

upon Chamberlain, and that they are determined not to have 
war and to do something to let him down easily. Salisbury's 
speech was conceived on these lines, and a little vague bluster 
but nothing more. I accentuated Bannerman's declaration 
about hostilities; this pledges the Liberal party against war. — 
Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

Mr. Labouchere to Mr. Chamberlain 

Hotel and Pension Waldhaus, 
VuLPERA Tarasp, Engadin Schweiz, Aug. 18, 1900. 

Sir, — I beg to acknowledge your letter of Aug. 6, enclosing 
copy of a letter of Mr. Montagu White, with copies of two letters 
"purporting to have been written by me," and inquiring if I 
desire to offer any explanation or observations with regard to 
them. 

For what I may have written or said to Mr. Montagu White 
I am responsible to the House of Commons, of which I am a 
member; to my constituents who have done me the honour to 
send me there ; and to the law. To you I owe no sort of explana- 
tion. I ascribe, therefore, your invitation to furnish you with 
one in respect to the enclosed letters to the singular illusion that 
no matter what course you may see fit to adopt, whether as a 
Conservative or a Liberal Minister, all owe you a personal 
explanation who take the liberty to disapprove of it, and to do 
their best to prevent its bringing us into unnecessary hostilities 
with some foreign power. Whilst not recognising this pretension 
on your part, I will, however, offer you some observations in regard 
to these letters, as you apparently desire that I should do so. 

The letters of mine enclosed were, I do not doubt, written by 
me. The only exception that I have to take to the copies is that 
a few of the words in them are, I should fancy, erroneously copied, 
as they do not make sense. The advice tendered in them seems 
to me to be excellent, and I know of no reason why I should not 
have addressed it to Mr. White, who was then the representative 
of a country with which we were at peace. Many letters passed 
before the War between that gentleman and myself. He was 
most desirous that all possibility of war should be removed, and 



THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA 451 

that harmony and good feeling should be established on a firm 
basis between Great Britain and the Transvaal. This we both 
thought could only be effected by a full recognition of the Con- 
vention of 1884, as explained by Lord Derby, who signed it for 
Great Britain, and by reasonable concessions on the part of the 
Transvaal Government in regard to the naturalisation and elec- 
toral franchise of the Uitlanders domiciled in the Republic. 
I therefore suggested that the Transvaal Government should 
grant to such domiciled aliens naturalisation and electoral fran- 
chise of the Uitlanders on precisely the same terms as they are 
granted to aliens in Great Britain. A law thus framed would, 
I thought, not be open to objection on your part, and would put 
an end to all the carping criticisms raised by you in respect to 
small and unimportant details in the concessions that you were 
forcing on the Transvaal in regard to these matters, and which 
seemed to me hardly calculated to bring about a peaceful solution 
of the situation. If I remember rightly the last letters exchanged 
between Mr. White and myself were just before the close of the 
normal session of Parliament last year. Mr. White in his letter 
informed me that he had received a communication from Mr. 
Reitz, the Transvaal Sec. of State, in which that gentleman told 
him that, although he had always been a strong advocate for all 
reasonable reforms in respect of the Uitlanders, and although 
he had used all his influence to promote a peaceful solution of the 
pending issues between the two countries, your despatches were 
so persistently insulting in their tone, and all concessions made 
by his Government were so invariably met by you with fresh 
demands, that even the most moderate of the Transvaal Burghers 
were becoming convinced that you were determined to oblige 
them either to surrender at discretion to all that you might 
demand, or to defend by arms the position secured to the Trans- 
vaal by the Convention of 1884. He therefore suggested that 
the negotiations should be taken in hand by Lord Salisbury, 
in which case he was convinced that a settlement satisfactory 
to both sides would be easily come to. As I entirely agreed 
with this opinion of Mr. Reitz, and believed that you were 
the chief impediment to such a settlement, I replied to Mr. 
White that the tenor of Mr. Reitz's communication should 
be conveyed to a leading member of the Cabinet, and that 



452 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

I hoped — although I did not expect — that the suggestion would 
bear fruit. 

As I gathered from your observations in the House of Com- 
mons that you had not made up your mind whether you would 
publish the letters of Members of Parliament to Transvaal 
authorities that had fallen into your hands, I will — so far as my 
letters are concerned — relieve you of further consideration by 
publishing them myself, together with this correspondence. I 
have often urged that the public should have the advantage of a 
full knowledge of all documents which are likely to enable them 
to form a sound judgment in respect to the issues that have arisen 
in South Africa. Might I, with all respect, venture to suggest 
to you that you should follow my example? The Secretary of 
State for Foreign Affairs (whoever he may be) and Her Majesty's 
representatives in foreign capitals correspond not only by de- 
spatches, but by what they are pleased to term "private letters, " 
which are to all intents and purposes despatches. I presume 
that the same course is usual between Secretaries of State for 
the Colonies and Her Majesty's Colonial Governors. You have 
announced that you are in favour of a "new diplomacy" in 
which nothing is kept back from the public. Would it be too 
much to ask you to inaugurate the "new diplomacy " by publish- 
ing all the so-called private letters that have been exchanged 
between you and the Governors of Natal and the Cape Colony; 
and all the letters and despatches exchanged between these 
Governors and our military commanders in South Africa, of 
which you may have copies? Without these documents it is 
impossible that either the House of Commons or the electors of 
the United Kingdom can form a true conclusion in regard to the 
"diplomacy" that led to the war, or be able to affix the responsi- 
bility on the right shoulders in respect to our lack of preparation 
for hostilities in South Africa and our initial reverses. If it is 
too much to hope that you will act on this suggestion, I would 
venture to urge that at least you should publish the correspond- 
ence between yourself and Mr. Hawksley in regard to your 
alleged knowledge of the contemplated Rhodes-Jameson con- 
spiracy of 1 894. Mr. Hawksley is still, and then was, the solicitor 
of the Chartered Company of South Africa, and is a close friend 
and confidant of Mr. Rhodes. When the Parliamentary Com- 



THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA 453 

mittee of Inquiry into all connected with the conspiracy was 
sitting, Mr. Hawksley was a witness. He alluded to this corre- 
spondence. But when I wished to examine him about it — which 
was my right as a member of the Committee according to Parlia- 
mentary usage — this was not permitted by the Committee. 
After the Report of the Committee was published Mr. Hawksley 
made public his conviction that, if this correspondence saw the 
light, a guilty knowledge of the conspiracy would be brought 
home to you. When the debate on the Report took place in the 
House of Commons, he placed the correspondence in the hands of 
a member with instructions to read it if you made any attack 
upon Mr. Rhodes. Far, however, from doing this, you went out 
of your way to assert that Mr. Rhodes had done nothing to 
invalidate his rights to be considered an honourable man, al- 
though only a few days before you had agreed to a report in 
which he was branded as having been guilty of dishonourable 
conduct. Since then, again and again, you have been asked to 
produce the correspondence. But this you have persistently 
refused to do, although no public interest could suffer by the 
production. Yet, if Mr. Hawksley is wrong in the inference he 
deduces from the correspondence, it is obvious that its publication 
would go far to allay the suspicion which led President Kruger to 
doubt your desire for a peaceful solution of the strained relations 
that existed between Her Majesty's Government and that of the 
Transvaal Republic, and which even now militates against all 
good feeling between the colonists of South Africa of British and 
Dutch origin. 

I trust that you will excuse my venturing to make these sugges- 
tions. I do so because I heartily agree with you as to the desira- 
bility of the "new diplomacy. " It is the only way in which that 
popular control can be established over the Executive which is 
essential in a self-governing community, if it is to escape from 
falling under the domination of some purely unscrupulous adven- 
turer gifted with a ready tongue. 

I believe with my leader. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, 
that the war might and ought to have been avoided, and I can- 
not help hoping that my letters which have fallen into your hands 
will show you that I laboured to the best of my ability in order 
that it should be avoided. Unfortunately these efforts were not 



454 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

successful. The war was commenced under a lamentable Ignor- 
ance on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers of the resistance 
which the two Dutch Republics would oppose to our arms. 
Reverses followed owing to the meddling of civilians in military 
matters. Pretoria, Johannesburg, and Bloemfontein are in our 
hands. The Orange River Free State has been annexed. The 
Transvaal Republic has been annexed. Under these circum- 
stances peace and prosperity can only be restored in South 
Africa when all suspicion is removed that the Secretary of State 
for the Colonies was actuated by his previous relations with the 
Rhodes-Jameson conspiracy in forcing a war. I am sure, too, 
that you will agree with me that it will not be right for the electors 
of the United Kingdom to be called upon to pronounce an opinion 
on the policy of a war which has cost us thousands of valuable 
lives and tens of millions of money, as well as on the mode in 
which the war has been conducted, until all that can enable them 
to arrive at a conclusion has seen the light. — I am, Sir, Your 
obedient servant, 

H. Labouchere, 

P. 5. — If you desire to offer any explanations or observations 
with regard to your action in respect to South Africa, they will 
receive due consideration. 

The Rt. Hon. J. Chamberlain, etc., etc. 

Mr. Labouchere wisely remarked at about this period of 
the South African War: "War is war. The old Greek line 
holds good that in war the great ones go mad, and the people 
where it takes place weep. This must inevitably always be 
the case." With equal force, but less elegance, he also 
remarked: "I do not waste my time in answering abuse. 
I am accustomed to it and I thrive under it like a field that 
benefits by the manure that is carted on to it." He must 
have thriven exceedingly during the summer of 1900, for 
the amount of abuse collected and thrown over him was 
phenomenal. Most of it was extracted from the most 
shadowy appearances of fact possible. The Conference, or 
Commission, referred to in the Pretoria correspondence, was 



THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA 455 

understood by papers of quite high standing, such even as 
the Birmingham Post, to be the Bloemfontein Conference, 
the abortive proceedings of which had come to an end early 
in June, 1899. Nevertheless, Mr. Labouchere was accused 
by the press of having, in his letters to Mr. Montagu White, 
elaborated a scheme, to make the conference at Bloemfontein 
not only a failure, but a deliberately planned sham. With 
regard to the cry of treason which was raised against him 
indiscriminately, the dates on the letters — even had his com- 
munications been of a treasonable nature — rendered such a 
charge childish in the extreme. 

As soon as Mr. Labouchere received Mr. Chamberlain's 
letter with its enclosures, which followed him to the retired 
Swiss Valley where he was spending his holiday, he wrote 
at once to the leader of his party telling him of what had 
occurred. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was spending 
August at Marienbad, and wrote him the following letter 
in reply : 

Marienbad, Aug. 22, 1900. 

My dear Labouchere, — I am much interested in your story, 
and shall look forward to my Truth with extra avidity. All you 
describe was perfectly proper and legitimate this time last year, 
or indeed at any time : and where high treason comes in I cannot 
see. My little facetiousness will do the great man no harm if it 
is published. I remember the fact perfectly. All the while the 
statesman was speaking, Aaron-Balfour and Hur-Hicks Beach 
were not holding up his hands, but watching, with anxious faces, 
his every word. 

Mark Lockwood, who is here, told me that you were one 
culprit, and that the other was no other than the ingenuous 
John Ellis, who was guilty of writing to some lady asking whether 
the stories of strange doings under martial law were authentic! 
If this is all one may exclaim tantane animis ccelestibus ires? 
Can our Sec. of State be so small-minded! 

What a gorgeous palace you are living in! It quite eclipses 
anything here, even in your favourite St. John's Wood quarter. 



456 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

They are all there: at least a fair representation, ready for Him. 
But alas He does not come. Weather superb here, but not much 
company to amuse or interest. — Yours, 

H. C. B. 

The war dragged on until the May of 1902, when the Boers 
were obliged to make peace, not so much on account of the 
military situation as because the burghers were weary of 
fighting and wanted to lay down their arms. And what else 
could be expected of them? Half the national army were 
prisoners of war, nearly four thousand had been killed, the 
rest were weakening and dwindling hourly, twenty thousand 
women and children had died in the concentration camps, 
thousands more were perishing on the veld. There was no 
help from Cape Colony, no help from Europe, no help from 
the sympathetic minority in England itself. ^ The national 
representatives of the South African Republic and the Orange 
Free State were given three days in which to consider the 
conditions of peace which were put before them by Sir 
Alfred Milner, and which they were told were absolutely 
final. Their answer was given on the 31st, at five minutes 
past eleven, only an hour before the expiry of the term of 
grace. The last few moments of their conference were 
occupied by President Schalk Burger, who closed the melan- 
choly meeting with these words: 

"We are standing here at the grave of the two Republics. 
Much yet remains to be done, although we shall not be able 
to do it in the official capacities which we have formerly 
occupied. Let us not draw our hands back from the work 
which it is our duty to accomplish. Let us ask God to 
guide us, and to show us how we shall be able to keep our 
nation together. We must be ready to forgive and forget 
whenever we meet our brethren. That part of our nation 
which has proved unfaithful we must not reject." 

In considering the part Mr. Labouchere played in the 

^ Times' History of the War in South Africa, vol. v. 



THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA 457 

discussions that took place in Parliament and in the press, 
during the pitiful struggle, no attitude but one of admiration 
for his consistency and envy of his courage can be maintained 
for a moment. This chapter cannot be better closed than 
with a repetition of his own words, expressed valiantly at 
the moment when he was of all men in England perhaps, the 
most unpopular: "The best settlement that can be made 
now will be worse for all parties than the settlement which 
could have been effected by tact and self-restraint had the 
Boers never been goaded into war. I adhere to everything 
that I have ever said as to the causes that brought on this 
war, with all its disastrous results. I retract not one word 
that I have published in Truth, or spoken in Parliament, or 
written in any letter, or uttered in any shape or form about 
the Chamberlain diplomacy and the Chamberlain war."^ 

' Truth, Sept. 6, 1900. 



CHAPTER XVII 
LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM 

WE have seen the depth and intensity of Labouchere's 
political views. Conservatism in its Tory or Whig 
form he hated and relentlessly fought. On the other hand, 
it is not to be doubted that some of the modern developments 
of the social side of radical policy since his retirement from 
politics would be far from meeting with his approval. The 
fact is that he was as strongly anti-socialist as anti-conserva- 
tive. He believed in competition as a principle of social 
existence and inequality as a natural fact, although he held 
firmly that the natural inequality of men should not be 
reinforced or distorted by the artificial inequality of rank. 
He did not believe that the task of government could rightly 
be held to imply moral responsibility towards weaklings; 
such as were unable to survive by themselves should not be 
assisted to do so. This was his theory ; in his personal rela- 
tions with others he often failed to practise it. "A fair 
field and no favour" was his social formula. Government 
might legitimately intervene to prevent such abuse of 
opportunity as might result from the business relations of 
employers and employees; but when all was done that 
could be done in that way, it was a man's natural qualities 
that enabled him to swim or doomed him to sink. Any 
attempt to interfere by legislation with this ultimate differ- 
entiation of nature was in his opinion immoral and senti- 
mental folly. A Cabinet had no charge of souls, it was 

458 



LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM 459 

merely a business concern running the affairs of the nation 
as cheaply and effectively as possible. 

It is evident that a man holding these opinions could not 
be other than unfavourable to Socialism. The question of 
Socialism, indeed, as a practical factor in politics hardly 
presented itself during the most active period of his political 
life, but in later days it came to the fore, and that, as might 
have been expected, in his own constituency, so largely com- 
posed of workers. In going through Mr. Labouchere's 
papers I have come across the report of a public debate which 
he held with Mr. Hyndman, the well-known Socialist leader, 
in the Town Hall of Northampton. The discussion is inter- 
esting as illustrating very clearly Mr. Labouchere's own 
view of the whole problem of labour and also as showing the 
definite line of cleavage between the spirit of the older 
radicalism in popular estimation, at all events, and much that 
is identified with the radicalism of to-day. 

Mr. Labouchere had been heckled in a more or less 
friendly way by some Socialist listeners at one of his meetings 
and had in consequence consented to meet Mr. Hyndman 
in debate. The subject of discussion was: "The socialisa- 
tion of the means of production, distribution, and exchange 
to be controlled by a Democratic State in the interest of the 
entire community, and the complete emancipation of labour 
from the domination of capitalism and landlordism, with 
the establishment of social and economic equality between 
the sexes. " 

Mr Hyndman opened the discussion with a speech of 
great eloquence. He began by denouncing the terrible evils 
of poverty and sickness among the working classes. "There 
are through the length and breadth of England large pro- 
portions of the population sunk into the most terrible misery 
— misery which I will defy you to find equalled in the most 
savage tribes on the planet." The growth of wealth and 
poverty were admitted to be simultaneous and out of the 
total wealth produced the workers only took a quarter or, 



46o HENRY LABOUCHERE 

on the most favourable showing, a third. "That means that 
for every stroke of work the producer does for himself he 
does three for other people. It had been said that the pre- 
valent misery had been exaggerated by Socialists, but 
according to the statistics of Mr. Charles Booth, who was no 
Socialist, 180,000 families were living in London below the 
level at which a family could subsist. City life debilitated 
country stock, and the third and fourth generations of those 
who have come into our great cities become valueless even 
for capitalists to make tools out of. " 

All this was misery due to capitalists and the system of 
wagedom. On the other hand, the economic forms of to- 
day were rapidly weakening, and the probability was that 
capitalism would drift much sooner than was expected into 
universal bankruptcy. "I long to see — I am not afraid 
to repeat the words — a complete social revolution, which 
shall transform our present society, by inevitable causes, 
from senseless and miserable competition, in which men fight 
and struggle with one another like pigs at a trough (the 
biggest hog perhaps getting his nose in first, and, it may be, 
upsetting the whole thing), into glorious and universal co- 
operation where each shall work for all and all for each. 

"Even now, if it were not for competition, there would 
be plenty, and more than plenty, for all. I say that the 
economic forms are ready for the transformation I have 
spoken of. But first, what is our position of to-day? The 
old Malthusian delusions are gone. Everybody can see 
that where the power to produce wealth is increasing a 
hundredfold, at the same time the population is increasing 
but one per cent, per annum. It is not over-population that 
causes the difficulty, but the miserable system of distributing 
the wealth which the population creates. What are the 
conditions to-day? What are the powers of production 
at the control of mankind? Never in the history of man 
were they near what they were to-day. At this present 
moment, Mr. Chairman, according to the evidence of the 



LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM 461 

American statist, Mr. Atkinson, on the great factory farms 
in the west of America, four men, working with improved 
and competent machinery upon the soil, will provide enough 
food for 1000; and in every other department of industry it is 
true in a like, or almost in a like degree. The power of man 
to produce cloth, linen, boots, for instance, is infinitely 
greater than ever before in the history of the race. What is 
more, it has trebled, quadrupled, centupled within the last 
fifty or a hundred years. What is then your difficulty at 
the present moment? Not as in old times, a difficulty to 
produce enough wealth, but the fact that your very machines 
which are so powerful to make wealth for all, are used against 
you in order to turn thousands of you out on the streets. 
It is no longer, as it was in some earlier communities, the 
power to produce wealth that is lacking. In Northampton 
as in every industrial town in England, you see great mechan- 
ical forces around you, but the workmen instead of control- 
ling the machines are controlled by them. And the products? 
What is our theory? This. All production to-day is 
practically social. Everything that is produced is produced 
for exchange and in order to make profit. Commodities 
are socially produced by co-operation on the farm, in the 
great workshop, in the mine. But the moment the product 
is produced it ceases to belong to those who have produced 
it and goes into the hands of the employing capitalist, who 
uses it in order that he may make out of it a personal gain. 
Consequently, you have here a direct and distinct antagon- 
ism between the form of production and the form of exchange. 
On the one hand, you have got great mechanical forces 
socially used simply for production for profit, whereas if 
they were socially used and the product socially exchanged 
every member of the community would benefit. To-day 
every increase in the power of machinery may result, fre- 
quently does result, in hundreds, or thousands, or tens of 
thousands of hands being thrown out unemployed on the 
market. Under the system of society we are inevitably 



462 HENRY LABOUCHEKE 

coming to those very powers which will engender wealth, 
happiness, and contentment for all." 

Mr. Labouchere then rose and replied as follows: 
"As your Chairman has already told you, this meeting 
is the outcome of a remark I made the other day when I was 
down here. Some of those who entertain strong Socialist 
views were asking me this or that question on the occasion 
of my giving an accoimt of my stewardship before the electors 
of this town. I pointed out that Socialism was only one of 
the subjects I had got to deal with, but if they would excuse 
me from going into details then I should be able to come down 
and discuss with them. I did not anticipate then that we 
were to have the pleasure of Mr. Hyndman's company in 
that discussion. I thought it was to be a sort of free-and- 
easy between the Socialists and myself. But you have sent 
for your big gun to demolish me. I can only lay before you 
my own views and those of the Radical Party upon social 
matters, and make a few observations, showing, as I think, 
that Mr. Hyndman's system, a very millennial system it is no 
doubt, is neither practicable, nor, if carried out, v/ould effect 
the ends which he anticipates. Now, Mr. Hyndman's sys- 
tem, I fully admit, is for the entire regeneration — he has told 
us so, I think — of the world. It is to be carried out by a 
scheme which has never yet, since the commencement of the 
world, been tried. No doubt, as Mr. Hyndman has stated, 
there are evils, very great evils, and much misery in the world 
under the present system. But it is not enough to prove that 
to show that any particular remedy will do away with them. 
There is, no doubt, a great deal of sickness in this world. That 
we all admit. But we should be amused if a doctor came for- 
ward and said: *If you try this particular pill you will find 
that all sickness will be driven away from the entire world. 
You are a criminal, you are mistaken, if you don't take that 
pill.' But Mr. Hyndman's plan goes much further than 
the example of the pill. You must remember that if Mr. 
Hyndman's plan were not successful it would ruin this 



LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM 463 

country and everyone in it. Surely, then, it is our business 
as practical men to look thoroughly and cautiously into this 
plan before we adopt it. Mr. Hyndman himself will admit 
that it is, at least, a leap in the dark. Mr. Hyndman has a 
light in his hand, but this light is not sufficient to tell us 
what would occur if we were to take this leap. I am not 
going to say just now whether it would be successful or 
imsuccessful; all I say is, we ought to look at this matter in 
a thorough strict and business manner, not dealing with it in 
vague generalities, but looking into it in all its details, be- 
cause when it comes to a question of any business, the real 
consideration in deciding whether the business is a sound one 
or an unsound one is not of generalities but essentially of 
details. Now I think that Mr. Hyndman, whether his plan be 
good or not, somewhat exaggerates the evils of the present sys- 
tem. Mr. Hyndman told us just now that in towns labour was 
in such a condition that those who engaged in labour faded 
out in three generations. Well, I confess I was astonished at 
that. I don't suppose you are all descended from Norman 
ancestors or anything of that, but I put it to you. Many 
of you can surely remember that you had great-grandfathers ; 
many of you had great-grandfathers who lived in Northamp- 
ton. There are many of you whose grandfathers, whose 
fathers were engaged in labour. You are engaged in labour 
yourselves. Do you feel yourselves such a puny miserable 
body of men that you are going absolutely to die out? But 
I forget. It is not that you are going to die out, you have 
died out according to Mr. Hyndman. Then what do I see 
before me? As the American says: 'Is there ghosts here?* 
Are you human beings? There you stand; you have been 
engaged in trade; you have been for many generations in 
Northampton ; I do think you have utterly deteriorated — 
that you are absolutely worth nothing. But statistics prove 
the contrary of what Mr. Hyndman says. If you take the 
death-rate in any large town — Manchester, Birmingham, or 
London, for instance — you will find that, so far from having 



464 HENRY LABOUCHEKE 

gone up, it has gone down. Notwithstanding the misery 
that no doubt exists, the towns are more healthy now than 
before. Now, I do not think that Mr. Hyndman seems to 
understand precisely the present system under which we live. 
['How about yourself?'] My friend says 'How about 
myself?' I am going to explain the present system. In an 
argument it is always desirable to take some common ground, 
and we may take this as a common ground: the end of all 
government is to secure to the greatest numbers such a con- 
dition of existence that all may obtain fair wages for a fair 
day's work, and that all may be employed; and that the 
government is good or bad in proportion as it approaches 
to this goal. Now, gentlemen, there are Individualists and 
there are CoUectivists. Modern Radicalism, I would point 
out to you, recognises this perfectly. It recognises perfectly 
that while Individualism is a necessary basis for social organ- 
isation, yet there is a very great deal that the State can do. 
Modern Radicalism is in favour of both Collectivism and 
Individualism. Now I will read to you some words I wrote 
down some time ago — ^words that were used by a statesman 
whom I do not always agree with on foreign politics, but who, 
in domestic politics, is a very sensible man. Speaking 
before some association. Lord Rosebery said this: 

"'Do not be frightened by words or phrases in carrying 
out your designs, but accept help from whatever quarter it 
comes. The world seems to be tottering now between two 
powers, neither of which I altogether follow. The one 
is Socialism, the other is Individualism. I follow neither 
the one school nor the other, but something may be bor- 
rowed from the spirit of each to get the best qualities of 
each — to borrow from Socialism its large, general con- 
ception of municipal life, and from Individualism to take 
its spirit of self-respect and self-reliance in all practical 
affairs. ' 

"Upon that subject those are essentially my views; and 
I would contend they are the views of the Radical Party 



LABOUCHEKE AND SOCIALISM 465 

as it at present exists. Now I am coming to our present 
system. I am going to say something for this poor old 
system. I have often, in different parts of Northampton, 
attacked the details of the system. I am now going to say 
there is something good in it. Mr. Hyndman seems to 
consider that the world is composed of a great many men who 
are engaged in labour on the one side, and on the other a 
great many huge capitalists who exploit those men. Mr. 
Hyndman told you that the man engaged in manual labour 
only receives a third of the value of his labour, and that the 
other two-thirds go to those horrible capitalists. Gentlemen, 
I essentially and absolutely deny that such is the case. But 
allow me to point first to these capitalists. Now a difference 
is often made between the amount obtained by labour and 
the amount obtained by those who do not engage in manual 
labour. It is exceedingly difficult to arrive at exact figures, 
and for this reason, that when you take what you call the 
national income of the coimtry it is often forgotten that the 
national income is very much counted twice or three times 
over. Take, in the first place, the income tax returns. I 
want to show you how money is really distributed. There is 
about £100,000,000 coming to individuals in England from 
investments in foreign bonds. Very well, and you surely 
will admit that that is not derived from the labour of English- 
men. Then £49,000,000 is paid to officials. It sounds an 
enormous quantity, this £49,000,000 paid to officials of the 
imperial and local government. I have often thought that 
a great many officials are paid a great deal too high, but we 
are not entering into that this evening, and there must be 
some officials ; there must be some government, and payment 
of the officials does not directly come from the sweat and 
labour of working men. Then there is £143,000,000 derived 
from public companies. Now these pubHc companies are 
all in shares. These shares, too, are held by small men, not 
by great men. A vast number of men hold them. Remem- 
ber that the whole system of limited liabiHty companies are 



466 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

really created in order to enable small men to act together 
and hold their own against the very rich men. 

I now come to the real amount which is directly derived 
from production and distribution, banking and such like; 
which directly goes into their pockets from the labour of 
working men. For this amount you must consult what is 
called Schedule D of the Income Tax. That schedule puts 
down the professions and trades. Altogether the total is 
£147,000,000 on which the tax is raised. That is the amount 
of the income. Now, if you take the professions, law, med- 
icine, art, etc., as producing £67,000,000 — I believe that is 
considered a fair amount — £80,000,000 is left for all the trad- 
ers, all the shopkeepers, all the bankers, and all the middle- 
men of the entire country. Well now, you must remember 
another thing. You must remember that these incomes are 
not eaten by the men who have them, but really go back to 
labour. [' No, no. '] Did I hear somebody say ' No ' ? You 
do say ' No, ' do you? Well, then, tell me what does become 
of them? Let a man spend his money in luxuries as he 
likes; these have to be produced; he is a consumer; it may 
be a foolish one, but his money goes back and forms a 
part of the entire wage fund of the country. When you 
say they have not a right to waste and squander their 
money, I think it would be better if they did not. But just 
remember how much is spent in the drink trade in this 
country. Let us look at ourselves a little, or I will trouble 
you to look at yourselves a little. £132,000,000 is the 
amount, I think, that is spent every year in drink. Of that 
£80,000,000, it is estimated, is spent by the working classes. 
I am not going into the question of drink, whether right or 
wrong, foolish or proper; I only want to point out that every 
class, to a very considerable extent, squanders a good deal of 
its means. Gentlemen, there is no more incontrovertible fact 
than this — that the more capital there is in the country the 
better it is for the country and the better it is for labour. I 
have already pointed out that it itself creates labour by those 



LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM 467 

persons who have capital consuming the capital. For in- 
stance, this £100,000,000 which comes from foreign invest- 
ments: would it be of any use that its owners should fly 
from this country with their £100,000,000 per annum? It 
is better that they should spend it here. 

"There are other advantages connected with capital. 
Mr. Hyndman has pointed to the evils of competitions. 
Now I am going to show you that competition is really to 
the advantage of the working man. You will admit that 
a certain amount of capital is necessary in order to fructify 
industry. You have to have a factory, plant, and a wage 
fund. All this requires capital. The cheaper capital is 
obtained the more there remains for wage fund. On that 
there can be no sort of difference. [' How is it we never get 
it?'] Well, you are begging the question. I am going to 
show you that you do get it. Owing to this country having 
so much increased in wealth the interest upon capital has 
gone down. There is perpetual competition going on among 
capitalists themselves. This is proved by facts. In 1800 
the interest on money was about five per cent. ; at the present 
moment interest is rather less than four per cent. All 
that is taken away from capital most unquestionably goes 
to labour. It cannot go anywhere else. This is why coun- 
tries compete for capital. Look at our colonies and foreign 
nations. Do not they all compete for capital? Of course 
they do. There is a third reason: the greater number of 
rich you have in a country, the greater the amount of wool 
which you may shear for the national expenditure. Take 
Northampton. Suppose twenty men came here, each with 
£10,000 per annum. You would say it is an uncommonly 
lucky thing they have come to Northampton. We '11 levy 
rates upon their houses, and they will spend money here and 
benefit the town. Suppose these men came with £100,000 
and suppose they put up some hosiery factories. Surely 
you admit that that would be a great advantage to the town 
of Northampton. Evidently, the greater the amount of 



468 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

capital attracted to any one particular place the greater the 
advantage to that place. The idea of driving away capital is 
much like a farmer saying : I will drive away my sheep because 
these sheep eat grass. They do eat grass. But the grass is 
converted into mutton. In the same way the money of the 
capitalists is converted into a labour fund for you. Well, gen- 
tlemen, I say the only way for a country to be prosperous is to 
encourage capital to go there, and the only way to encourage 
capital to go there is to give some sort of security to capital. 

"What is the difference between this country and Persia, 
or any other Eastern country? In the Eastern country a 
despot is always laying hands on every atom a man can 
save. A man therefore hides away, or runs away, from the 
country with his savings. The result is that the country is 
poor and the working men of that country are poor. Now 
take the cases of China and this country. In China there 
are 400,000,000 inhabitants. No doubt the Chinese work 
very hard. There is, however, no capital there ; there is no 
safety for capital: And the consequence is that the Chinese 
labourers do not produce so much as the comparatively few 
million workers in England. Moreover, every fifteen Chinese 
do not get the wage of one single working man in England. 
The reason is that the Chinese are not industrially organised. 
They have not the advantage of capital to aid them in pro- 
ducing. Each works, so to say, on his own hand, with the 
result that they are far worse off than the men in the factory 
which has been brought into existence by capital. 

"Now, gentlemen, I will take a cotton factory, under the 
present system. It has to be built and equipped. That 
requires capital. There is capital required for the wage fund, 
that is to say, to pay wages to the men during the year, 
because of course the money does not come in until the end 
of the year, and then capital is required to buy the raw 
material. Mr. McCuUoch says that for every adult thou- 
sand men employed in such a factory £100,000 is required 
for fixed capital, £60,000 is required for a wage fund, and 



LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM 469 

£200,000 is required for the purchase of raw material. The 
total is £360,000. Now, gentlemen, the first charge is 
obviously interest on capital. You must get the capital 
in some way. Assume that you borrow it. You get interest 
on capital. Another charge is the raw material. Raw 
material you cannot alter because the cotton comes from 
abroad. All you can do in order to increase the amount go- 
ing to the wage fimd is to reduce the amount that goes as 
interest on capital, and that which is called profit to the 
undertaker of the concern. Now what is the profit in the 
whole of the textile trade? The profit and the interest on 
capital do not amount to more than four per cent. A por- 
tion of that goes to the capitalist and the remainder for the 
organising skill and intelligence of the man who brings the 
whole thing together and works it. Well, you surely will 
not tell me that that is excessive. It is rather too little. 
For my part I have often wondered why in the world a man 
takes the risks of trade instead of investing his money in 
something that brings him in four per cent. Mr. Hyndman 
talked of the gambling interests of the capitalists. Why, that 
is all for your benefit. Each capitalist, call him a gambler 
or a vain man, thinks himself cleverer than other people and 
says, I am going to make a fortune. One does make twenty 
per cent., and the other gets ruined. But if you take the 
whole body of capitalists their profits come out at four per 
cent. If it were not for the gambling chance, or the ability 
shown by some undertaken in making this four per cent., 
you would not get money at so low a rate of interest as now, 
nor would you get a body of skilled organisers ready to take 
so little as they do take at the present moment for their 
ability and work. Now, Mr. Hyndman will, I think, admit 
with me that the thousand men would not produce so much 
were it not for the organising powers of some man, and also 
for the capital employed. We know they would not. Each 
man without the aid of capital would make so much a day. 
With the organisation and with the capital employed in the 



470 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

business he makes a great deal more, so that he really 
benefits — he gets more than he would from his own particular 
separate work. He gets more that is from his collective 
work by this application of capital and organisation than he 
would be logically entitled to were he to work without the 
aid of capital and machinery. 

"Now I am going to show you by a few figures what bene- 
fit capital has been to the working man. Here, again, you 
have a great difficulty with the figures. They are calculated 
out by various men, but I think this conclusion is generally 
accepted. In 1800 all that was earned, obtained, secured 
in wages to working men was seventy millions sterling. In 
1 860 this had increased to 400 millions. In 1 860 the numbers 
engaged in manual labour were double those engaged in 1800, 
so you must make a deduction for that. It would then 
stand thus, that whereas a man got seventy pence, shillings, 
or pounds for his work in 1800, in i860 by the co-operation 
of capital he received 200. But it is even more at the present 
time, for he now receives 600 millions. There is a dispute as 
to whether it is 500 millions or 600 millions. Mr. Giffen 
says it is 600, Mr. Leone Levi says it is 531. Mr. Hyndman 
says it is 300. Well, anyhow, that is two to one. I stand 
by Mr. Giffen and Mr. Leone Levi and take the figure as 
at 53 1 . But here again is another way of putting it. In the 
first year of the present reign, the gross income of the country 
was 515 millions. Of this 235 millions went to labour. 
Labour at the present time gets 531 millions according to 
the lower estimate of Professor Leone Levi, consequently 
labour now gets more than the income of the entire country 
at the commencement of the present reign. 

" Gentlemen, there can be no more erroneous idea than to 
suppose, as Mr. Hyndman apparently (as I gathered from 
him) laid down, that the lot of the working man is not bet- 
tered by machinery, or that machinery by doing part of the 
work now done by working men either increases the number 
of hours or reduces the wages of labour. My contention is 



LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM 471 

that it reduces the number of hours and increases the wage 
of the individual. Listen to this: Machinery, of course, is 
revolutionising the labour market; but it is not found that 
machinery, while it displaces labour, though opening up new 
channels for the displaced workers, either increases the hours 
of labour or decreases the remuneration. Before the Sweat- 
ing Committee it was stated that the wages of nailmakers in 
this country was 12s. a week on the average. The American 
nailer earns £6 a week; yet American nails are only half 
the price of English. The explanation is that, owing to 
excellent machinery and efficient labour, maintained by high 
wages and short hours, the American produces 2>^ tons of 
nails while the English man or woman is making two cwt. 
You say 'Shame!' I say, 'Why don't you do it?' Why 
don't you follow the example of the Americans? 

"Take again the illustration of a Waterbury watch. So 
exact is the machinery which cuts the different parts of this 
watch that an assistant will put one of these instruments 
together in a few minutes by selecting at random a piece 
from as many heaps as there are parts in the watch. Yet 
the workmen earn 45s. a week, and the watches can be sold 
cheaper than those made by workmen earning 8s. or 9s. a 
week in the Black Forest. How is this? Because by the 
aid of his improved machinery the American completes 150 
watches in the same time as the European is painfully 
manufacturing forty. You will say that some capitalist 
wrote that; some man who was unfit to judge the matter. 
I will tell you who the capitalist was. I got it out of Rey- 
nolds's newspaper last Saturday. As I pointed out, in the 
factory you have these diverse charges — the charge for 
interest, the charge for ability in organising, and the charge 
for the wage of the worker. The business, I hold, of the 
wage worker is to see that he gets a fair wage ; and it is be- 
cause the only way to do this is to combine in trade unions 
that I am one of the strongest advocates of trade unionism 
in the whole country. Then take distribution. I leave 



472 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

out the carriage and sale of the various articles in the shops. 
Here again competition reduces prices. You know that as 
well as I do. You know perfectly well that you see stuck 
up in some shops: 'Come and buy here; things are half a 
farthing less than anywhere else.' Shopkeepers compete 
against each other. And there you have just the same reason 
as in the case of factories why men go into the business of 
shopkeeping, because each man thinks he is cleverer than his 
neighbour ; each one believes he is going to make his fortune 
and his neighbour is not. But labour benefits by this be- 
cause the lower the price of the article the greater the demand 
for it. I say that, taking the whole shopkeepers of this 
country, taking their labour, taking the amount of capital 
they put into their different shops, it is impossible to say 
that they get an excessive profit from their trade. 

"Now, of late there has been a good deal of discussion in 
regard to co-operatiorf. I observe that Mr. Hyndman did 
not allude to co-operation. But co-operation exists at 
present, both in regard to production and in regard to 
distribution. In order to carry out co-operation on the very 
largest scale it would not be necessary to alter the whole basis 
of society. Under the present despised system any working- 
men may co-operate with each other, may be their own 
employers, and in that way get every farthing that is derived 
from their employment. Statistics show that co-operation, 
just like other things, sometimes pays and sometimes does 
not pay. In Lancashire, in Yorkshire and in the north of 
England there is a great deal of co-operation both in regard 
to production and in regard to distribution. The latest re- 
turns show that about $15,000,000 is employed in this work. 
As I have said, in some cases they pay and in some cases they 
do not pay. I have observed some curious things in connec- 
tion with this. You would say that at a co-operative store 
you would get an article cheaper than at a shop, whereas, as 
a matter of fact, you do not get an article cheaper. It is a 
curious thing that you don't, and the reason is this. The 



LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM 473 

co-operators get together in shares a certain capital which 
has to pay four or five per cent. Then each member gets 
a pro rata return at the end of the year, a percentage upon 
the amount he has paid in the store in connection with his 
own particular trading. That is perfectly fair. Well, so 
eager are they to get the return that they put up the price 
of the goods against themselves. You must remember that 
while I advocate co-operation, or while I say that co-opera- 
tion needs no Socialism to enable working-men to get every 
farthing from the process of production and distribution, 
I do not believe that co-operation in distribution is not with- 
out certain evils. Why is it that shops still hold their own, 
and I believe always will hold their own? By competition 
in the first place prices in the shops are reduced to as little 
as or less than the prices in the stores. Again, if a man wants 
a red herring he don't walk to the middle of the town, near 
where the stores have to be, but prefers going to a neigh- 
bouring shop and buying it there. Moreover, we know that 
a great many men have spent their wages before the end of 
the week, and they want a little credit. You may depend, 
upon taking all things into consideration, that no very great 
benefit is to be got out of co-operative distribution. I 
merely went into this question of co-operation, not to dis- 
cuss so much the advantages or disadvantages of co-opera- 
tion, as to point out to you that co-operation can exist, may 
exist, and does exist among working men, whenever they 
like it, under, the present system. 

"Now I come to Mr. Hyndman's plan. I have said a few 
words in favour of the present system. I have tried to 
explain what that present system is, and how, as a matter 
of fact, labour does benefit by the existence of capital and 
capitalist. Mr. Hyndman's plan, I take it, is based upon 
the notion that labour does not get its full share; that it 
only gets one-third. ['It ought to get the lot.'] Very 
well, I have often in the course of my life thought I ought to 
get the lot, but I have never got it, I can tell you. Mr. 



474 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

Hyndman's idea is that if the State took upon itself the 
functions performed by private capitalists everybody would 
be fully employed and properly paid. Could this desir- 
able result be brought about? That is the real thing. If, 
at once, under Mr. Hyndman's guidance we could enter upon 
the millennium we should all be for entering. But the 
question is whether we should enter it by this gate or whether 
we should get somewhere else. 

"I have got here the programme of the Social-Democratic 
Federation. I have extracted it from Justice. It is all 
right. Mr. Hyndman pointed out that a great many things 
in the programme were merely doctrines which had been 
put forward by the Socialists, and had now been adopted by 
the Radicals. I should say that there was a great deal in it 
that was put forward by the Radicals and had always been 
advocated by the Radicals ; and we are exceedingly glad that 
the Socialists agree with us so far. Now I like this pro- 
gramme. What has been my trouble in talking with some 
Socialists is that they never have the courage of their own 
opinions. What are you hissing for? I am going to praise 
you. As members of the Social-Democratic Federation 
you are surely not going to take under your wing every 
Socialist in the world. I have often had discussions with 
Socialists, and I have found that they leave out certain por- 
tions of their programme. I have said to them: That is a 
necessary plank in your programme; knock out any of 
these stones and you knock down the arch. You have done 
nothing of the kind. You have fairly and squarely put this 
as the Social Revolution in all its details. You see I am not 
complaining of you, so don't cry out again before you are 
hurt. Now, Number 7 says: 'The means of production, dis- 
tribution, and exchange to be declared as collective or 
common property.' Now, what does this mean? That 
all manufacturing, all shopkeeping, all shipping, all the 
agricultural industry, and all banking ought to be done by 
the State " 



LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM 475 

Mr. Hyndman : ' ' Community . ' ' 

Mr. Labouchere: "Or community. Every man, as I 
understand it, is to do his bit of work, every man is to have 
his share of the profit of the business. Have you ever 
thought what amount of capital this would require? The 
building of factories would require 1000 million pounds 
for ten million workers. The wage fund would be 600 
millions; the raw material would be 200 millions; the ship- 
ping, say about 500 millions. I am trying to underestimate 
the amount. As to the shops, I suppose, if you took all 
there are in the whole country, they would cost about 100 
millions. Then the agricultural buildings and machinery, 
excluding the land itself, would be, say, 500 millions. This 
would be very much under a proper estimate, but still the 
whole amount runs up to something like 3000 millions. Are 
all the factories to be seized? My friend says 'Yes. ' That 
will knock off 1000 millions at once. Are all the shops to be 
seized? ['Yes, yes.'] This will knock off 100 millions 
for the shops. Still, if you do this, you won't certainly 
have done. Obviously you have to buy the raw material, 
you have to have a wage fund, and a good deal to keep the 
machinery in order even when you have laid hands on it in 
the expeditious way your friend proposes. That would be 
2000 millions. How are you going to get it? You would 
borrow it. Would you borrow it? Let us suppose you 
borrow it. To borrow it you have to get somebody to lend 
it to you. I have known a great many persons ready to bor- 
row more than people are ready to lend. Another item, 
which I am bound to say is not in the Radical programme of 
the Social-Democratic Federation, is the repudiation of the 
National Debt. Now, sure, if you repudiate the National 
Debt you would find a difficulty in getting anybody to 
lend you the money you want. Where are you going to 
get it? Are you going to levy it upon property? What 
property are you going to levy it upon ? We '11 allow that the 
land and factories are to be seized. If they are not to be 



476 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

seized they are to be ruined ; they are to be left high and dry. 
No individual man is to work in them. You would have 
a certain amount of portable property like the money that 
comes in from foreign investments, but its owners would not 
wait to have it taken. They would immediately clear out 
of the country." 

Mr. Hyndman: "Hear, hear." 

Mr. Labouchere: "I am going from surprise to surprise. 
I really do believe that Mr. Hyndman wishes that the men 
with the 100 millions should clear out of the country. 
These lOO millions are derived from investments made 
abroad. The investments are already made, and the 
money may be paid here or abroad just as its owners please. 
Therefore you would absolutely have no control over it. 
Its owners could walk off to America or France to-morrow, 
or to one of our colonies, where they would be welcomed with 
pleasure and where they would be able to live with their 
100 millions and spend it just as they liked. The only 
difference would be that they would not be consumers 
here, they would not compete with their capital to reduce 
the interest on the capital necessary to run the whole business 
of the country. I am very curious to know, I cannot quite 
make out, whether a man may save or not. It is not clear. 
I see one of the articles is, ' the production and distribution 
of wealth is to be regulated by society. ' That leads me to 
suppose he may not save. I should say myself that if you 
are going to carry out this millennium you could only do it 
by preventing any sort of saving: because if savings take 
place you will have some men rich and some poor, evidently. 
But how about the professions? What are they to be done 
with? Are professional men not to be allowed to make any 
savings? I see all justice is to be free. Well, that would 
create a good deal of litigation; but I personally suffer a 
good deal from justice, so that I don't know that I should 
particularly object to that item. You would have, I pre- 
sume, these professions ! You would have doctors and men 



LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM 477 

engaged in art and so forth? They would be able to sell 
their productions abroad, their skill abroad. Consequently 
how would you regulate their fortunes? How are you going 
to regulate the distribution of wealth in regard to these men? 
I say the thing is absolutely and utterly impracticable. 
You could not. Yet, gentlemen, it seems there is some idea 
of saving, for I see this in another article : ' The extension of 
the Post Office Savings Bank which will absorb all private 
institutions that draw profit from money or credit!' Well, 
but who would put into the Post Office? The Post Office, 
if they did put it in, would have to incur all the risks of the 
great business. But I told you that the National Debt was 
to be repudiated. What is the fact? That the Post Office 
Savings Bank has invested £5,599,000 of public savings, of 
labour mainly, in consols. If, consequently, you were to 
do away with the National Debt one of the things you would 
do would be to repudiate five millions sterling saved by 
labour. Now, I think it was some gentleman who was dis- 
cussing the matter with me in the Reporter who said that you 
might save, but no man would be allowed to employ any 
savings by making another man work for him. Allow me to 
point out to you that indirectly one man must work for 
another if he does not work for himself. Is he going, like that 
wicked man in the Bible, to hide his talent in a napkin? 
Not a bit. I suppose he will make a little interest on it. 
He won't work for the interest himself, so somebody else 
will. If you are going to try to distribute wealth you will 
have continual disputes, for I deny that, so long as human 
nature is what it is, so long as a man wants to lay by some- 
thing for his children, you will be able to prevent savings. 
The only thing you would be able to do would be to frighten 
savings away from this country, and cause them to be taken 
to some other country, which would compete against you. 
"Let us suppose now that this initial difficulty of ob- 
taining the money is got over. Then there comes the or- 
ganisation. Well, who would organise? Who would be 



478 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

superintendents, and who would be workers? Who would 
engage in the complicated business of exchange with foreign 
countries? Remember, all skilled talent would disappear. 
You say 'Ha, ha!' Do you really think that a man who 
perhaps is a skilled organiser of labour, who could earn a 
thousand or two thousand a year abroad or in the colonies, 
would stay here and receive an exceedingly small sum, simply 
because he was an Englishman? Of course he would go 
away. I say you would deprive the country of its most 
intelligent organisers. 

"There is another difficulty. Who would settle the 
employment to be secured for each person? Here is a 
shepherd. He would say: 'I want to be a shoemaker.' 
'My good friend,' they would say, 'we don't want you; go 
and be a shepherd. ' They 'd say to me : ' We 've got quite 
enough newspapers without yours. We want a good chim- 
ney sweep. Be that. Go to Newcastle. ' They 'd say to 
our friend, Mr. Hyndman : ' We '11 find employment for you 
in hay-making in Somersetshire. ' Mr. Hyndman may say 
he likes that paternal arrangement; he likes hay-making. 
I '11 tell you one thing: I would n't go and sweep chimneys 
in Newcastle. But you say that the State carries on the Post 
Office, the Army, and the Navy, among other things; and 
I say it carries them on exceedingly badly too. You will 
find, taking ship for ship, that ships can be built in a private 
yard much cheaper than in a public yard. As for the Post 
Office, I agree with Mr. Hyndman in saying I do not know 
any public Department so badly managed as the Post Office. 
There is an enormous deal of sweating ; the big men get too 
big salaries, and the little men do not get enough. If the 
Army, Navy, and Post Office be an exemplication of what 
would be done under the paternal arrangement, Heaven 
help us! 

"But, gentlemen, what really surpasses my understand- 
ing is this, how in the world, if Mr. Hyndman's system were 
adopted, any regular work, or shorter hours, or better pay, 



LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM 479 

or employment of all would be more easily obtained than 
under the present system. I say your capital, if you did get 
it, would be at a higher cost. I say that profit, if you take 
profit, is almost reduced by competition to a minimum. 
You would not make one shilling by the transaction. Supply, 
surely, would depend upon demand. You could not alter 
that. Take the foreign trade. You would not increase your 
foreign trade, under this system. You would still have to 
compete with foreign countries in China and elsewhere. 
Foreign consumers would take goods from those from whom 
they could buy them cheapest. The Socialists have per- 
ceived this, and they have invented the idea of establishing 
on the land an enormous number of labourers, who are to act 
as consumers, and consequently take all the home surplus 
products. And I see here it is proposed that the Municipal 
or State army of labourers should be organised as on the great 
farms in America. Mr. Hyndman alluded to what they did 
on these bonanza farms. They send men down to them twice 
a year, once to sow and once to reap. You might find if you 
had the proposed armies that the product might be increased, 
but the number of persons employed on the land, that is to 
say, the consumers on the land, would be reduced. That is 
why I have been in favour of small holdings. 

"As to the numbers of the agricultural labourers, those 
labourers won us the election last time, remember. What 
are you hissing at ? Did you want the Conservatives to win? 
You must take people as they are. These agricultural 
labourers may be wrong, but their strongest desire is to 
become possessors of small holdings. That has been the 
aim and object of the Parish Councils Bill, which will slowly 
and quietly nationalise the land by throwing the property, 
little by little, and very quickly I think, into the hands of the 
Parish Councils, who will let it to the villagers. You will 
then get a large number of agriculturalists on the land, far 
greater than now, consuming your products. At the same 
time you would avoid their coming into the towns and com- 



48o HENRY LABOUCHERE 

peting with you for labour. The subject is a very lengthy 
one. As I said, you have to go into the question in all its 
absolute details. I will only tell you one other reason why 
I object to this system of making us all children in the hands 
of the State. I say it would be the greatest danger to our 
liberties. Why is the Anglo-Saxon race the master race in 
the world? Why has the Anglo-Saxon race maintained its 
liberties? It is because of that individualism, that self- 
reliance, which exists in this country. I would trust no body 
of men, not Mr. Hyndman and the leaders of the Social- 
Democratic Federation — though I make no implication 
against them — nor even a body of angels, with the power of 
destroying and ruining, at one fell blow, the entire nation. 
This unquestionably would be the case, and who would be 
able to resist it? You would have some strong and powerful 
man coming forward, supported by all the discontented, all 
the men who were not prepared to accept this wondrous 
dispensation, this dead level of equality. I say you would 
have such a man ; I say the risk is too great. Mr. Hyndman 
has alluded to France. What did one great Frenchman, 
M. Guizot, say? He said: 'The evil of France is that a 
Frenchman must either be administered or an adminis- 
trator. ' What is the consequence of that feeling? They 
have no self-reliance. Every now and then they have a 
Republic, and then comes one like Napoleon, who overturns 
their Republic and seizes upon the whole thing. 

"I have almost finished now. I infinitely prefer listening 
to Mr. Hyndman to speaking myself, but I had to make some 
defence of the cause by which I stand. I do say that the 
Radical Party as at present constituted, the modern Radical 
Party, has adopted every reasonable idea of Socialism. And 
the future of this country depends upon Socialism being 
recognised within proper limits — Collectivism I would prefer 
to call it — individualism being recognised, trade unionism 
being recognised, co-operation being recognised. We must 
all give up our little separate fads and all work together in 



LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM 481 

the cause of Democracy, the rule, the absolute rule, of the 
people, ruling for the benefit of the people." 

Mr. Hyndman said in reply : 

"There are just one or two points I should like to deal 
with in reply to Mr. Labouchere. To begin with I have 
listened with the greatest surprise to-night to his constant 
reference to the wage fund. Without any disrespect to him 
I say that, as a matter of fact, that figment has been aban- 
doned by every political economist of any note for the last 
thirty years. It was abandoned by Mr. John Stuart Mill, 
in deference to the criticism of Long and Caimes twenty- 
five years ago. The bottom was knocked out of it by 
Marx forty years ago. What is the wage fund, my friends? 
The wage fund is provided by the labourer himself, who, 
mark you, advances his labour to the capitalist before he 
gets a farthing of wages. There is not a man in this hall, 
however big an Individualist or Radical he may be, not a 
single working man here who goes to work from week end to 
week end that does not advance a week's labour to the 
capitalist before he gets a sixpence in return. The fact of 
the matter is that the capitalist has got in his possession the 
value, and more than the value, far more than the value paid 
as wages before he pays a sixpence of those wages. He can 
go to his banker with the product he has got out of the 
labourer and get an advance before he pays those wages. 
Practically in getting the advance he realises the product of 
his employees' labour. The fallacy of the wage fund theory 
is recognised by every economist, and I defy Mr. Labouchere 
to prove I am wrong. I will defy Mr. Labouchere to name 
an economist who upholds it." 

At this point of Mr. Hyndman's speech Mr. Labouchere 
rose and said : 

"I deny that there is one single economist of repute who 
questions the effect of what I said about the wage fund. The 
employer has either to provide himself with a wage fund, and 
then he is entitled to interest on his money, or he has to 



482 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

borrow it from someone else, and then he has to pay interest. 
The working-man, it is perfectly true, gives him credit for a 
week — not always, but I am taking Mr. Hyndman's state- 
ment — but the employer does not, I say — take the cotton 
industry — the employer does not get back his money till the 
end of the year. Consequently, whereas the working man 
gives credit for a week, the employer has to give him credit 
for fifty-one weeks. ['No, no.'] I say yes, there is no 
question about it. All that I want to point out is that you 
have to pay interest on this wage fund. Mr. Hyndman 
admits it, because he says, what does he do? He goes and 
obtains it from his banker. Does his banker give it to him ? ' * 
To which Mr. Hyndman retorted, not ineffectually: 
"I say that the security has been provided by the working 
man before the capitalist is able to raise a sixpence on it, 
and that all he does is to divide up the surplus value he has 
got from the worker with the banker who has made the 
advance. There is no such thing as a wage fund, except that 
provided by the worker himself. And it is exactly the same 
with the capital. Friends and fellow-citizens, where does 
this capital come from? From the labourers themselves. 
Where can the capital come from if not from the labour of 
the workers? Did not the workers build every factory in 
this country, from its base to its topmost storey? Did 
they not put down every sleeper on the railways, and lay 
down every mile of Une? I say, therefore, that this idea of 
the wage fund, which has been repudiated by John Stuart 
Mill, by Cairnes, by Mr. Alfred Marshall, by every econo- 
mist of note, does not exist in economy, but is a figment of 
the imagination. Now, friends, as to this question of 
families fading out. Mr. Labouchere says that the death- 
rate has lowered. That is perfectly true. On the average 
the death-rate has lowered. But mark this. It has lowered 
principally in the well-to-do districts. The death-rate in 
St. George's, Hanover Square, is ii per looo; in several 
districts of Lambeth it is 66." 



LABOUCHERE AKD SOCIALISM 483 

Mr. Labouchere, evidently astonished, turned to the 
Chairman and said, "Is that a fact?" Some one in the 
audience shouted ' ' Proof ! ' ' 

"Proof you must look up in the statistics; I can't bring 
a library here with me. I say, friends, in addition to that, 
that vitality is on a lower plane. For this, again, I give as 
my authority passages quoted in Alfred Marshall's Principles 
of Economics, where you will find the opinions of doctors. 
I also refer you to reports of certifying surgeons for the 
factories for the year 1875 and later dates. I say that when 
I speak of families fading out, I mean that the physical and 
mental vigour and initiative of those families are crushed 
down in our great cities. I have never heard it disputed 
before; I don't think I shall hear it disputed again. If you 
ask any of the great contractors as to his supply of powerful 
navvies, he will tell you he cannot get them out of the towns. 
If you ask any of the recruiting officers he will tell you the 
lads from the cities are physically useless. You will find 
the standard of height for recruits has decreased five inches 
during the present reign, and the chest measurement in 
proportion. Consequently there is, I say, in our great cities, 
which form the bulk of the population, a constant physical 
deterioration going on, which will end in the fading-out of 
the people unless we replace this system of robbery and 
rascality and oppression that is going on at present by a 
better. I cannot stop any length of time to dispute about 
the way in which the wealth that is taken from the workers 
is divided up. It matters not to me whether it is the Royal 
Family, or the professional men, or the servants who divide 
it, or in what proportion they divide it, after it has been 
taken from the worker. That makes, I say, no difference 
whatsoever. The workers never see it again. Four per 
cent, also on £100,000,000 is forty per cent, on £10,000,000. 
How is the amount of capital reckoned? Mr. Labouchere 
knows perfectly well that a coal mine or factory which has 
cost but £40,000 wiU frequently be capitalised at £200,000. 



484 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

That is the way they put it in the Blue Books. I can give an 
example of a mill in Rochdale where the freehold belongs to 
the man who owns that mill, when and where every single 
charge is met in a separate category, and then, after all these 
are divided, the interest on the capital is reckoned over again 
on the whole capitalised value. I say that four per cent, 
does not represent the profits on cotton, even in these com- 
paratively bad days for the cotton industry. But the mere 
fact that the profit is going down means that competition is 
cutting its own throat, that we are no longer masters of the 
markets of the world. And what does the capitalist do when 
his profits go down? He tries to make another turn of the 
screw on his labourers — and the result was the great cotton 
strike which occurred a short time ago, when, for sixteen 
weeks on end, the poor unfortunate spinners and weavers 
stood out because they would not have that amount which 
the capitalist was losing in the competitive market sweated 
out of their very bone and blood. So much for your four 
per cent, or your forty per cent. It is wrung out of the 
workers, it can come from nobody else. As to the organiser, 
what did the Roman slave-owner give to his villeins, who 
stood in the same relation to the working slaves as the 
capitalist organiser to the labouring classes to-day? He 
paid him lower remuneration because his labours were less 
exhausting. That is a positive fact. I say that if you want 
organisers who to-day are appointed by the capitalist, let 
them be appointed by the workers, who can pay them far 
better than the capitalists, because you will have all the 
capitalists' profits and all the amounts the capitalists sweat 
out of their employees' labour as well to pay with. [' Don't 
capitalists start as working men? '] Yes, and the more they 
grab, the bigger they get. As to the amount received by 
the working men as wages, Mr. Leone Levi was one of the 
most unscrupulous and lying champions of the capitalist 
class who ever wrote. He represented that the average 
wages of working men and women throughout England 



LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM 485 

were 32s. a week. That is a positive fact ; it is on record in 
his own books. Thirty -two shillings a week! I say that 
is a deliberate lie. And that is how he made out his 
amount of 531 millions. As a matter of fact, Mr. Giffen 
and Mr. Mulhall both included in the wages of the working 
classes all those paid to domestic servants, the soldiers and 
sailors, all that is paid to your noble friends the police. I 
say that, as a matter of fact, those are not producers in the 
common sense of the word. They are simply encumbrances 
upon the industrial community. I say, further, that out of 
the amount paid in wages to the working classes, which I 
reckon at £300,000,000 to £350,000,000, not a sixpence more, 
one-fifth or one-fourth has to be paid as rent for the miserable 
dwellings the workers occupy. That is, I say, the position of 
the labouring portion of the community at the present time. 
I am told that shopkeepers are a useful class. Well, surely 
there are too many of them. You will find in one street half 
a dozen people vending the same wares. The organisation 
of any decent system of distribution would not allow such 
a state of things to continue, but would turn the unnecessary 
distributors into producers, and thus Hghten the weight of 
producing on the others. Mr. Labouchere does not seem 
to understand that what we want is not money. You cannot 
eat it; you cannot be clothed with it. What you want is 
good hats, good homes, and good beefsteaks — enjoyment, 
contentment in life, comfort, and beyond all these, public 
amusements of every kind. I say that these have nothing 
whatsoever to do with money. If you want to save, you 
don't want to save money; you want to save those things 
which are necessary to the support and continuance of life. 
Mr. Labouchere seems to think that communism is unknown 
on this planet. I say that human beings far lower in the 
range of civilisation than we, with comparatively small and 
pimy means of production, live far more happily, in far 
better conditions of life, than enormous proportions of our 
great city population. Where? I will tell you. I say I 



486 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

have lived among communal tribes where, as a matter of 
fact, the conditions are as I have told you. The inhabitants 
of Polynesia, the Pueblas of New Mexico, and the people of 
other places which I have not seen, live better, considerably 
better, with all their small means of production, than the 
proletariat of our great cities, and they produce, regard be- 
ing had to the productive powers at their command, articles 
of clothing and domestic use as remarkable in their way as 
the finest products of civilisation. More than that, all the 
great bed-rock inventions of humanity, the wheel, the 
potter's wheel, the smelting of metals, the canoe, the rudder, 
the sail, every one of these and many more, the stencil plate 
and weaving, to wit, were invented under communism and 
no human being knows who invented them. That is a 
sufficient answer to the supposition that under a Socialist 
state of society there would be no progress in the invention. 
But I am asked what the capitalists will do when the trans- 
formation to a co-operative commonwealth is made. They 
will go away with their capital. What is capital? Capital 
is the means and instruments of production used by a class 
to make profit out of labour. Can the capitalist roll up the 
railways and take them away in his portmanteau? Will he 
walk away with the factories in his waistcoat pocket? Mr. 
Labouchere himself sees the futility of some of this. He 
advocates the nationalisation of the railways because he 
says that they will be better administered under the State 
than to-day." 

Mr. Labouchere: "No, no." 

Mr. Hyndman: "Why then do you want to nationalise 
them?" • 

Mr. Labouchere: " I very much doubt whether they would 
be better managed in the sense that they would produce 
more money than now. I hold that the roads of a coiintry 
ought to belong essentially to the State. It is better for the 
general benefit that they should be held collectively. I do 
object to their giving preferential rates to foreigners and 



LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM 487 

charging excessive amounts to persons sending goods a 
short distance in England. That is the reason why I 
think the railways would be better in the hands of the 
State." 

Mr. Hyndman: "As a matter of fact, preferential rates 
can be stopped without the nationalisation of the railways. 
Mr. Labouchere can bring in a Bill when Parliament meets 
to prevent them. Why, then, is he so Utopian as to demand 
the nationalisation of the railways? I want, however, to 
raise the discussion out of the minor points, and I say this, 
that Socialism does not mean organisation by the State 
under the control of Mr. Hyndman, or any one else, but the 
entire organisation of industry, on the highest plane of co- 
operation for the benefit of all. In that co-operative com- 
monwealth competition for profit will be unknown. Mr. 
Labouchere has drawn a tremendous picture of what it will 
cost to effect the change. What does the social system cost 
you as it is going on to-day? Competition carried to its 
logical issue must engender monopolies. These monopolies 
have been given by the capitalist class to themselves in their 
capitalist House of Commons. That assembly must be 
re-constituted and turned to Social-Democratic purposes. 
But then you will lose all those clever men who will not join 
with you! Where will they go? We are stronger in France 
than in England, and stronger in Germany than in France. 
Will they go to China? That seems to me the last refuge 
of the wandering individualist, the last place on the planet 
where the individualist will be able to go. Socialism is 
gaining ground in every country in the world, and mark this, 
where the people are best educated, there we are most 
powerful. Germany is the best educated country?-, and 
Socialism is stronger there than in any other nation. What- 
ever city in England has a body of educated workers, there 
we make way quickly. Mr. Labouchere seems to think that 
no one will serve his f ellowmen unless he is able to grab from 
them. His idea of humanity seems to me — I wish to say 



488 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

nothing that is in the least offensive, and I will withdraw it 
at once if it is considered so. " 

For about a minute there was disorder so great that Mr. 
Hyndman was unable to proceed. The Chairman rose and 
appealed for quietness during the two or three minutes that 
remained to Mr. Hyndman. Silence having been restored, 
Mr. Hyndman said: 

"I say, friends, that the representation that the men of 
intelligence, of genius, of capacity, and the like would leave 
us and go to other places means that they are not animated 
by the idea of serving their species, but simply of making 
their own fortunes. I say that mankind, as a whole, has 
higher ideals than that. I say that all the great work done 
on this planet, all the great books that have ever been 
written, all the great inventions that have ever been made, 
have not been made for money, but for something higher 
than that. I say further, that when a man has been paid 
all he requires to sustain a happy, contented, and wholesome 
life, when he has around him a people living happily with 
him, co-operating with him, when he sees that every effort 
he makes tends to the advantage of the whole community 
and to the drawback and domination of none, I say that 
then, animated with a lofty public spirit, he will place 
his whole power, his whole intelligence, his very faults, and 
his life at the disposal of the community he benefits by his 
existence." 

Mr. Hyndman went on to point out that many of the 
reforms adopted by the Radicals were in reality due to 
Socialist inspiration. He instanced the eight hours day and 
the nationalisation of railways, which Mr. Labouchere had 
advocated, and concluded what must have been a stirring 
and able speech as follows : 

"Now I repeat, friends and fellow-citizens, that we are 
arguing for what is inevitable, that at the present moment 
the capitalist system, like the feudal system before it, and 
chattel slavery before that, heads back progress. I say 



LABOUCHERE AND SOCIALISM 489 

that now, in many directions the force of electricity, and 
various great mechanical and chemical inventions, which 
might tend to the benefit of the race are being headed back 
by low wages and vested private interests. I don't think 
anybody can deny that. It must be admitted also that 
universal commercial crises have occurred time after time 
in this century, each one worse than the one before it. Since 
the Baring crisis of 1890 there have been great financial 
difficulties, and thousands and tens of thousands of people 
have been thrown out of work. Why? Not because there 
is not plenty of wealth to be produced, but because, as a 
matter of fact, the power to produce it is taken from the 
producers altogether. I say that, whether we like it or not, 
a system of Socialism is being built up out of the facts of 
to-day. From the misery we see around us there is neces- 
sarily arising a glorious future, the golden age which all the 
greatest of the sons of men from Plato and Moore onward 
have desired and foreseen, an age in which wage-slavery and 
competition having ceased, men will co-operate for the 
greater advantage and enjoyment of all. Friends, that 
which the great thinkers of old saw through a glass darkly 
we see face to face. We are the inheritors of the martyrdom 
of men to the forms of production and distribution through- 
out the ages. I ask you to-night not to treat this question 
as being brought down to you from on high, but as growing 
up under your feet below. Consider it earnestly for the 
sake of the men, women, and children who are being crushed 
down in our cities, and whose lives may be rendered worthy 
and happy. Let us uplift ourselves at once from the ques- 
tion of twopenny and twopenny-halfpenny profit into a 
higher, nobler, and more glorious sphere." 

Mr. J. G. Smith, on behalf of the Socialists, wound up 
the proceedings by proposing a vote of thanks to both 
speakers. He expressed his appreciation of the "sincerity 
and honesty" with which Mr. Labouchere had met Mr. 
Hyndman. 



490 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

Opinions will probably differ as to who really got the 
better of this encounter, nor shall I be rash enough to 
award the palm. At least Mr, Labouchere's speech shows 
the sort of way in which he approached the question. It 
shows his dislike of theory, his determination to stick to the 
concrete, and his distaste for rhetoric. 



CHAPTER XVIII 
MR. LABOUCHERE AS A JOURNALIST 

By Mr. R. Bennett, Editor of "Truth" 

MR. Labouchere went into newspaper work with all the 
best qualifications that a journalist can have, and 
with many that no other journalist has ever had a chance of 
possessing. He had an inborn gift for writing, using his 
pen by sheer force of natural impulse. He took a lively and 
unfailing interest in all the doings, sayings, and thoughts of 
his fellow creatures, while looking at all human affairs with 
critical but dispassionate detachment. His reflections, if 
not very profound, were always acute, novel, and humor- 
ous; and he had a method of expression, whether in speech 
or writing, peculiarly his own — pithy, witty, and unconven- 
tional. He was a great reader; he was at home in French, 
German, and Italian; he had acquired a smattering of the 
classics at Eton and Cambridge; and he had a retentive 
memory. When he first took up journalism he was nearly 
forty, and he had had an unrivalled experience of all phases 
of life, extending from Jerusalem to Mexico. Among other 
things, he had spent ten years as an attache in six or eight 
different capitals; he had gambled in nearly every casino 
in Europe; he had travelled with a circus in America; he 
had run a theatre in London; he had sat in the House of 
Commons; he had dabbled in finance in the city. Add to 
all this that he had a considerable aptitude for business, as 
for most other things; lastly that he was never under any 

491 



492 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

obligation to write a line except to please himself ; and it is 
not surprising that he made a distinguished mark in the world 
of journalism. It is perhaps not too much to say that the 
best work of his life was done as a journalist. 

Yet he seems to have tumbled into this work quite 
accidentally, and in the most unusual fashion. He began 
as a newspaper proprietor; he subsequently became an 
editor; and he ended as a casual unpaid contributor. This 
strange inversion of the normal career of a successful journal- 
ist is in keeping with everything else in his life and character. 
The story of his proprietorship of the Daily News and of his 
association with Edmund Yates on the World has been told 
elsewhere in this book. His work on those papers, extending 
over seven years, had given Mr. Labouchere a useful and 
varied experience of very different classes of journalism 
when he decided, in 1876, to start a journal of his own. 
There had been no quarrel of any kind between him and 
Yates, and it was not in any spirit of antagonism to the 
proprietor of the World that he decided to make his own 
paper one of the same type. At that date there was rather 
a reaction against the solidity and stolidity of the older 
journalism, and out of it had sprung a class of journals 
animated by a lighter spirit, and handling both men and 
things in a free and easy style. Vanity Fair and the World 
had been very successful in this line, and their spirit appealed 
to Mr. Labouchere, who detested pretentiousness in every 
shape, and to the end of his days never ceased to regard as a 
ridiculous object the journalist who takes himself seriously. 
"What is Truth? ^* asked some successor of jesting Pilate, 
who had heard of the title proposed for the new paper. 
"Another and a better World,'' replied Labouchere; and 
the quip no doubt expressed correctly what he had in his 
mind. The spirit in which he proposed to endow London 
with a new journal is perhaps even better shown in the title 
originally projected for this organ, which was, not "Truth, " 
but "The Lyre." It was in deference to the opinion of 



MR. LABOUCHERE AS A JOURNALIST 493 

Horace Voules that Mr. Labouchere consented to abandon 
"The Lyre" in favour of "Truth." Voules's business 
instinct, which was highly developed, warned him that it is 
better to assume a virtue if you have it not. No doubt he 
was right. Nobody, so far as I know, has yet had the 
courage to start a paper called "The Lyre, " but Mr. Labou- 
chere would have done it had he been left to himself. 

The mention of Voules reminds one that Mr. Labou- 
chere's first step when he had decided upon his new venture 
was to find a competent practical journalist to undertake the 
"donkey work." In a lucky moment he fell upon Horace 
St. George Voules, who eventually became his. alter ego in 
Truth office. Horace Voules himself was a man of very 
remarkable personality and abilities. He was the son of a 
well-known solicitor at Windsor, who, by a strange freak of 
fortune, was the local Tory election agent, and as such had 
been instrumental in unseating Mr. Labouchere when he 
was returned for that borough. While still only a boy Voules 
had formed an ambition to become a journalist, and, by way 
of beginning at the beginning, had entered the great printing 
and publishing house of Cassell, Petter, and Galpin as a 
printer's apprentice. He made his way upward with extra- 
ordinary ability, and the partners formed such a high opinion 
of him that when, in 1868, they started the Echo — the first 
London halfpenny paper — they put Voules in as business 
manager. He was then only four-and-twenty. He con- 
tinued to manage the Echo with remarkable success till the 
summer of 1876, when it was acquired by the late Mr. Pass- 
more Edwards, and Voules resigned. He went away to take 
a holiday, and a few weeks later received a letter from Mr. 
Labouchere asking him to come and see him. This was the 
beginning of an intimate association which lasted till Voules's 
death in 1909. An agreement was entered into under which 
Voules was to be " manager ' ' of Truth at a very modest salary, 
though with a percentage of the profits which ultimately 
proved very valuable; and this agreement was the only one 



494 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

ever concluded between the proprietor and his second-in- 
command, although for the last twenty-five years of Voules's 
life the whole editorial and financial control of the paper was 
in his hands alone. Another point of interest is that to meet 
the expenses of the new paper Mr. Labouchere opened a 
special account with his bankers and paid into it the sum of 
£1000. Some time later, when the growth of the business 
necessitated more capital, this sum was increased to £1500; 
but for the first few years £1000 was the whole of the capital 
that Mr. Labouchere invested in his venture, and practically 
it was never touched; that is to say, the account which he 
opened in 1876 with that credit remained with at least that 
amount to its credit until he sold the paper in 19 10. From 
those details it may be gathered that neither the proprietor 
nor his manager regarded themselves as entering upon an 
enterprise of any great pith or moment, or imagined that 
they were founding a journal which would become famous 
over the whole world. It certainly did not occur to Horace 
Voules, then an ambitious and remarkably successful young 
man of thirty-two, that in becoming "manager" of this 
undertaking at £600 a year he was taking a position that 
would occupy him for the rest of his days. 

In such circumstances the first number of Truth made its 
appearance in the first week of 1877. It was a decided success, 
as success in that class of journals was reckoned at that date, 
though the sale of the first number was only a fraction of the 
figures reached fifteen or twenty years later. What was of 
more consequence, and perhaps more surprising, the second 
and following numbers were equally successful; for the 
production of a new journal is rather like the production of a 
new play — a full and enthusiastic house on the first night 
does not necessarily mean a long run. Horace Voules was 
fond of boasting that Truth had paid its way from the first, 
and some of the credit of that result was undoubtedly due 
to his great business abilities. Mr. Labouchere had not 
gone into the venture with any idea of making money. 



MR. LABOUCHERE AS A JOURNALIST 495 

He knew the history of the early difficulties of the World, 
which have been referred to in an earlier chapter of this 
volume, and it was probably an agreeable surprise to him 
that he was not called upon to meet a loss on the first few 
months' working of Truth. In an interview which appeared 
in one of the monthly magazines a few years ago, Voules 
described the scepticism with which his chief received the 
balance-sheet presented to him at the end of the first six 
months. It appeared to Labouchere too good to be true, 
and he exercised his ingenuity in attempts to demolish it. 
In later years his attitude towards balance-sheets was very 
different. 

The combination of Labouchere and Voules was a very 
powerful one. Few newspapers have ever had a more 
remarkable pair of brains and personalities behind them — 
the one acute, ready-witted, audacious, irresponsible, intent 
only upon amusing himself and amusing his readers; the 
other long-headed, business-like, strenuous, and pushful, 
intent only upon making money. The time came when Truth 
owed everything to the guidance and inspiration of Horace 
Voules ; but at the start it was Mr. Labouchere who made the 
paper. This can easily be seen on looking back to the files 
of the journal during the first two or three years of its exist- 
ence. There was nothing very striking or sensational in the 
matter of its contents ; in form and substance it did not differ 
materially from the journals of the same class that had pre- 
ceded and followed it. But the hand and spirit of Labou- 
chere were all over it, and gave it a character and individuality 
which were bound to make the fortune of any journal. His 
literary activity at this period was amazing. As Voules used 
to say, he was exactly like a child with a new toy ; and after 
playing with many toys he had found the one which exactly 
suited him, for the handling of a pen was his greatest joy. 
"He would have written the whole paper if he could, " said 
Voules. In point of fact for a time he did write a con- 
siderable part of it every week. He poured out amusing 



496 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

paragraphic commentaries on every subject of the moment 
that interested him, and flooded the paper with droll remi- 
niscences of his own adventures and the innumerable dis- 
tinguished people whom he had met in all parts of the world. 
He "did" the dramatic criticism, and he never did anything 
better; in this owing much, no doubt, to his personal experi- 
ence as a theatrical manager. He wrote every week a 
"City" article — a very unconventional kind of City article, 
quite unlike any product of financial journalism before or 
since. It broke out occasionally in the most unexpected 
directions; for example, one finds an irresistibly comic 
account of his experiences among brigands in Mexico crop- 
ping up in a survey of the financial position of that country. 

Starting on another occasion to discuss the merits of 
Greek stocks, he lapses into a disquisition upon the character 
of the modern Greeks, especially the peasantry, illuminated 
by reminiscences of his travels in their country. One of the 
funniest things he ever wrote — a detailed account of his 
journey through the Holy Land with the Rev. J. M. Bellew — 
made its appearance as an integral part of a critique of some 
new play. The connecting link between the two things was 
that Mr. Bellew's son, the late Mr. Kyrle Bellew, had made 
his debut on that first night. It is only when a man writes 
for his own paper that he can do this sort of thing; what 
would be the emotions of any normal editor on receiving from 
his dramatic critic a three-column narrative of a journey in 
Palestine as part of a notice of Mr. Bernard Shaw's last 
masterpiece! It was the spontaneity, this unexpectedness, 
the evident absence of all premeditation or effort, as well as 
a sort of irresponsible indifference to the ostensible business 
of the moment, that gave such a piquancy to Mr. 
Labouchere's writing, as it did to his conversation. It was 
something quite new in journalism, and it remains to this 
moment absolutely unique. 

Another characteristic of Mr. Labouchere's which gave a 
peculiar flavour to Truth was his frankness and disregard for 



MR. LABOUCHERE AS A JOURNALIST 497 

the convenances in speaking about his contemporaries. He 
had no taste for mere tittle-tattle and scandal-mongering in 
print. Prying into the private life of well-known people 
was rather a weakness of the "society journals" of the day, 
among which Truth was classed, and Mr. Labouchere never 
favoured it. But it must be admitted that in private con- 
versation he was an inveterate gossip, always well-posted 
in whatever talk was current to the discredit of anybody 
sufficiently known to be talked about; and when he found 
occasion to speak about any person in print, all that he knew 
about that person was apt to come out, with precisely the 
same unconventional frankness that distinguished his own 
personal confessions. Added to this he was not only con- 
temptuous of pretence, sham, and humbug in every shape, 
hating "snobbism" in its widest sense as heartily as Thack- 
eray himself, but he was hopelessly devoid of the spirit of 
reverence, even in regard to matters that usually receive 
reverence on their merits. Nothing was sacred to him. 
He seemed to discover instinctively the seamy side of what 
other people admire, and to find a delight in calling attention 
to it; and this mischievous habit of mind displayed itself 
in his handling of men as well as things. Introduced into 
journalism, and fortified with an extensive knowledge of life 
picked up in the diplomatic service, the theatrical world and 
the city, and in the ordinary social intercourse of a man of 
good family related on all sides to distinguished people, 
Mr. Labouchere's natural bent of mind and freedom of speech 
led to the embellishment of Truth almost every week with 
candid observations upon contemporary personages, which 
might be open to criticism on the score of taste, but which 
made extremely entertaining reading. 

Inevitably his pen got him into trouble. The only 
wonder is that the trouble was not more serious, and for 
this it may be safely assumed that Mr. Labouchere was much 
indebted to Mr. Horace Voules. After a very few weeks 
working together, the two men became very intimate friends. 



498 HENRY LABOUCHEKE 

and Mr. Labouchere, who rarely erred in his reading of men, 
acquired a great respect for Voules's judgment, so much so 
that, in characteristic fashion, he speedily turned over to his 
friend all sorts of business quite unrelated to Truth, Voules 
himself was essentially a fighting man, as he showed when he 
obtained control of Truth, but he had the mind of a lawyer 
as well as a man of business, and he had — though it may 
sound paradoxical — a much greater interest in the profit 
of the paper than the proprietor himself. From the first, 
although nominally only concerned with the commercial side 
of Truth, he read in proof every line of the paper, and he was 
not the man to allow the proprietor or anybody else to tumble 
accidentally into an indefensible libel action. He used to 
say that he had often saved his chief from that fate, and no 
one who knew them both would doubt him. Another thing 
which often saved Mr. Labouchere was his invariable readi- 
ness to apologise to anybody whom he had unintentionally 
annoyed or injtired. He did so on many occasions in the 
early years of Truth, and he would always do it if he was 
approached in the right way. Not only this, but if he was 
once persuaded that he had been too hard on a man, or that 
what he had intended as mere play had seriously wounded 
the subject of his playfulness, he would often try afterwards 
to make amends. In more than one instance he became 
quite friendly with people whom he had more or less insulted 
before he knew them. For better or worse, it was one of the 
cardinal traits of Mr. Labouchere's character that he was 
incapable of strong emotion, and, among others, of personal 
malice. In one or two instances he conceived rather strong 
antipathies to individuals — not without reason — but it was 
entirely foreign to his nature to hurt a man for the sake of 
hurting him; and a most remarkable thing about him was 
that while he would strenuously attack a man's conduct or 
ridicule unmercifully his speech or actions, he was quite 
capable of meeting the same man in a perfectly friendly 
spirit, and discussing what had been done on one side and 



MR. LABOUCHERE AS A JOURNALIST 499 

said on the other, not only without heat, but with a sincere 
sympathy for the victim of his pen. This trait was essential 
in his character — a result of that philosophic interest in his 
fellow creatures which caused him to look at all of them alike 
without any conventional bias in favour of one mode of life 
or action rather than another. If he had encountered a 
burglar in his house already loaded with valuables, his first 
impulse would have been, not to call the police, but to engage 
the intruder in conversation, and to learn from him some- 
thing of the habits of burglars, the latest and most scientific 
methods of burgling, the average profits of the business, and 
so forth. He would have been delighted to assist his new 
acquaintance with suggestions for his future guidance in his 
profession, and to point out to him how he might have 
avoided the mistake which had on this occasion led to his 
being caught in the act. In all this he would not by any 
means have lost sight of his property ; on the contrary, the 
whole force of his intellect would have been surreptitiously 
occupied with the problem of recovering it with the least 
amount of inconvenience to his friend and himself. He 
would have manoeuvred to bring off a deal. If by sweet 
reasonableness he could have persuaded the burglar to give 
up the "swag, " he would have been delighted to hand him 
a sovereign or two, cheer him with refreshment, shake hands, 
and wish him better luck next time; and he would have 
related the whole story in the next week's Truth with infinite 
humour and profound satisfaction. 

This is scarcely an effort of imagination. Something 
very similar happened in Truth office in the 'nineties long 
after Mr. Labouchere had ceased to take any active interest 
in his paper. A money-lender who had been severely, but 
not unjustly, handled in Truth, insisted upon seeing Mr. 
Labouchere personally. By that time Horace Voules was 
the only person who ever saw anybody who had business 
with the editor, but he happened to be away, and Labouchere 
consented to see the man. The money-lender arrived in a 



500 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

most truculent mood ; but he was quickly disarmed by La- 
bouchere's ignorance — perfectly genuine — of the nature of 
his grievance, and beguiled into telling his story with artless 
confidence. What threatened at first to be a heated wrangle 
developed into a friendly interchange of views, in which 
Mr. Labouchere, showing a keen scientific interest in money- 
lending operations, explained to his visitor exactly where he 
was at fault in the management of his business, and gave 
him a few practical hints which might assist him to make 
larger profits without exposing himself to unfavourable 
remark. The man seemed extremely pleased with the valu- 
able advice he received, and it was his own fault if he did not 
depart very much the wiser for the interview. When Mr. 
Labouchere was writing at large in the early days of Truth, 
he made a great many people extremely angry, and some 
never forgave him. But to be angry with him if you met him 
face to face was only possible for the very stupid. Some 
few years ago the late Mr. John Kensit made an unsuccessful 
application to the High Court to commit the proprietor of 
Truth for contempt. Considering all that had been said 
about him in the paper, he had considerable ground for not 
loving its proprietor, even if he had been aware, which he 
was not, that Mr. Labouchere had never had a hand in what 
had been said about him. But they sat next to one another 
in the well of the court during the hearing of the motion, 
and by the time the case was on they were chatting and laugh- 
ing together like old friends. ' ' Good-bye, Mr. Labouchere, ' ' 
said the Protestant champion at the end of the proceedings. 
"This has been quite a pleasant meeting." "I hope you 
have enjoyed it as much as I have," answered Labby. 
"I am sorry that you have got to pay for it." And they 
shook hands affectionately. 

On the other hand, Mr. Labouchere had a certain com- 
bativeness of disposition, and he was from the first bent 
upon using Truth for the exposure of abuses and frauds on the 
public. Consequently, in a certain number of cases he 



MR. LABOUCHERE AS A JOURNALIST 501 

deliberately laid himself out to attack individuals, regardless 
of the penalties of the law of libel. His journal had not been 
in existence many months before an action was commenced 
by Mr. Robertson, the manager of the Royal Aquarium at 
Westminster. Mr. Labouchere was a director of the com- 
pany owning that place, and he wrote very fully and frankly 
about its affairs in Truth — in particular a humorous account 
in his best manner, of an altercation between Robertson 
and himself in the fair at Boulogne. The circumstances of 
the action are of no interest now ; but the case is memorable 
as the first of the long series of libel actions that Truth has 
successfully defended in the course of its existence, and further 
as the occasion of one of the earliest forensic successes of 
Charles Russell, afterwards Lord Russell of Killowen, and 
an intimate friend of Mr. Labouchere's for the rest of his life. 
Russell had not at that time taken silk, and was little known, 
but Mr. George Lewis (as he then was) and Mr. Labouchere 
had sufficient confidences in his abilities to brief him without 
a leader, and the experiment was fully justified by the result. 
The next legal proceeding in which Mr. Labouchere involved 
himself was a cause celebre of the first dimensions — ^his pro- 
secution by the proprietor of the Daily Telegraph on account 
of a series of persistent and, it must be confessed, somewhat 
vicious attacks upon the management of that journal. Mr. 
Labouchere elected to defend himself, and he has rarely 
acquitted himself in public with more address than he did 
on that occasion, though he had a good deal of useful assist- 
ance from the late Lord Justice Bowen, then a stuff gowns- 
man, who was briefed for the printers of the paper. There 
is no occasion at this date to revive other circumstances of 
this personal encounter between two eminent representatives 
of journalism. The jury disagreed, the case was not brought 
to trial again, and the hatchet was buried. Mr. Labouchere 
was released on his own recognisances, and many years later 
he used to be fond of explaining that he was still in that con- 
dition. Apparently he remained in it till his death. 



502 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

One other libel case of Mr. Labouchere's early journalistic 
days may be recalled for the sake of the very characteristic 
accident out of which it arose. Mr. Labouchere had written 
something extremely dangerous. Voules noted it on the 
proof, and after a consultation between them Mr. Labouchere 
agreed to take the passage out. He accordingly drew his 
pen through two or three of the incriminating lines, or 
rather he attempted to do so ; but his pen always worked in 
rather an erratic way, and the marks he made on the proof 
were as much under the words as through them. The con- 
sequence was that the printer misunderstood the intention, 
and the libellous passage which had alarmed Voules not only 
appeared in the paper, but appeared with the additional 
emphasis of italics ! This was one of the accidents which had 
to be repaired with an apology, though this did not prevent 
the issue of a writ. If any other actions for libel were com- 
menced in the early years of Mr. Labouchere's editorship 
they did not lead to serious fighting, and there was nothing 
in them worth recalling now. But he certainly contrived 
in the course of three or four years to give his paper a great 
reputation for courageous plain speaking, and to convey the 
impression that its proprietor was a dangerous man to fall 
foul of, and a difficult man to tackle successfully. 

As for his work as an editor during that time, he seems to 
have taken it very easily after the first few weeks. "I will 
give him six months, " Edmund Yates was reported to have 
said when his friend was beginning with such a big splash; 
and the thought was not begotten of a wish, but of Yates's 
knowledge of his late contributor. The fatal weakness of 
Mr. Labouchere's character — certainly during the second 
forty years of his life, and probably during the first forty — 
was incapacity for sustained effort. He quickly grew tired 
of everything he took in hand, and he hated drudgery and 
routine work. Horace Voules used to relate his amazement 
at the zest with which his chief, at the first start, threw 
himself into the work of reading copy and proofs, and criticis- 



MR. LABOUCHERE AS A JOURNALIST 503 

ing and planning improvements in the paper when it was 
produced ; and his equal amazement at the process by which 
such editorial functions were one by one delegated to the 
so-called "manager," never again to be resumed. The 
same story is told by others who were familiar with the 
inside of Truth office during its early days. From the first 
Voules's position was that of an assistant-editor, and in 
the course of a year or two he became very much more of an 
editor than an assistant, while the editor lapsed into the 
position of an adviser and an indefatigable contributor. It 
must have been in 1878 or 1879 that Voules went away for 
a holiday on the Continent, and received a letter in which 
Mr. Labouchere informed him that there was very little 
going on, and added, "I do not think I shall bring the paper 
out next week." Voules believed him to be perfectly cap- 
able of this enormity, and the mere thought of it filled him 
with such dismay that he came back to London by the next 
train. "You need not have worried yourself so about it," 
said Mr. Labouchere when his colleague reached the office. 
"Probably I should have brought the paper out all right." 
But, unlike his employer, Voules was very given to worrying 
himself, and this incident worried him so much that he never 
left the proprietor in charge of his own paper again. At 
holiday times he used always to take a house within easy 
reach of London, and it is a fact that for fourteen or fifteen 
years, until he had his first bad illness, he never missed seeing 
Truth to press himself. This little incident, so very char- 
acteristic of Mr. Labouchere, at least serves to justify the 
observation that he soon learned to take his editorial func- 
tions lightly ; and it shows the waning of the zest with which 
he had taken up the "new toy" a year or two previously. 
Until the general election of 1880, Mr. Labouchere 
remained regular in his attendance at the ofiice, and actively 
interested in the affairs of his journal if his principal work 
for it was purely literary. But after he was returned for 
Northampton and began to make afigurein Parliament, which 



504 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

he did almost from the first, Truth began to have a secondary- 
place in his affections. In the course of the next year or two 
he seems to have gradually relinquished the entire editorial 
control into Voules's hands. He ceased to supply dramatic 
criticism, and to write with any regularity on city matters. 
On the other hand, he naturally began to write regularly on 
politics, which up to that time he had done only now and then 
and without expressing any strong opinions. At that date 
the connection between the Press and Parliament was much 
less intimate than it has since become. The journalistic 
M. P., so familiar a figure in recent years, was virtually 
unknown. There were only two or three newspaper pro- 
prietors in the House of Commons; none in the House of 
Lords. The descriptive reporter had not yet made his 
appearance in the Press Gallery; the gentlemen there were 
shorthand writers only. The Lobby correspondent had not 
risen to that public importance for which he was destined. 
Mr. Labouchere consequently had the field very much to 
himself as a parliamentary journalist. Perhaps he did not 
make as much use of the opportunity as he would have done 
three or four years earlier, when journalism for its own sake 
had such a hold upon his affections. He was always ex- 
tremely averse to using his parliamentary position for the 
advantage of his own paper; indeed, so far did he carry this 
feeling that in later years when any matter was under 
ventilation in Truth, which naturally furnished matter for 
the interrogation of a Minister, it was most difficult to obtain 
his assistance, and quite impossible to persuade him to ask 
a question himself. If he consented to give his help, he 
nearly always got a friend to put the question down. From 
first to last — to the intense annoyance of Horace Voules — 
his disposition was always to use his own journal as an aid 
to his schemes and ambitions in Parliament, never his 
parliamentary position for the advantage of his journal. 

Nevertheless, the reputation that he speedily made for 
himself in the House of Commons, his novel and individual 



MR. LABOUCHERE AS A JOURNALIST 505 

style of handling politics and politicians — friends and foes 
alike — and the audacity of the opinions which he was 
always delivering with an air "that was childlike and bland, " 
necessarily had their effect upon the paper that he owned 
and wrote for. As the organ of a rising M. P., constantly 
before the public, and a mouthpiece of advanced Radicalism, 
Truth gained more than it lost by the cessation of Mr. 
Labouchere's exuberant literary activity. The circulation 
of the paper, which had not increased to any great extent 
between 1877 and 1880, now began to display considerable 
buoyancy. At the same time Horace Voules was beginning 
to make his hand felt. He enlisted many useful recruits to 
fill the space left vacant by Mr. Labouchere. In particular 
he developed the paper on the financial side, having a strong 
fancy, as well as great aptitude, for that line of journalism. 
In fact he may be considered a pioneer in it, for at that time 
there was not a single financial daily paper in London, and 
the financial articles in the general daily Press were framed 
in a very bald and perfunctory style. With the assistance 
of Mr, L. Brousson, who wrote for Truth with most valuable 
results for nearly twenty years under the pseudonym of 
"Moses Moss," Voules made the paper as strong in finance 
as Mr. Labouchere made it in politics, and very much more 
popular. Voules was a man of great enterprise, courage, and 
resource, a sound judge of "what the public wants," and at 
the same time a bom fighter. He wrote little himself, but 
he had a good eye for literary ability in others — at any rate 
the kind of ability that he needed for his own purpose. 
Following up the lead which Mr. Labouchere had given in 
attacking frauds and abuses, he made during the 'eighties 
several big journalistic coups by the exposure of financial 
swindles. From this he passed on to the fertile field of 
charity. By this time he had got together a fairly complete 
and competent staff for dealing with such matters. He made 
a thorough investigation of every subject he dealt with. He 
interviewed witnesses himself; he inspired every line that 



5o6 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

was written for publication. Thus fortified, he threw down 
the gauntlet to one swindler after another. Many were 
routed and driven out of the field by the mere force of the 
case made against them in Truth. Others, who defended 
themselves by proceedings for libel, were met and overthrown 
one after another in the Law Courts. The story of all these 
personal encounters, which lasted almost continuously for 
ten or twelve years, would fill a volume — and a volume with- 
out any parallel in the history of journalism. The work 
ended only because there was no more to be done. There 
was no game left worth powder and shot. Horace Voules 
had simply cleared out this particular field. Nor was his 
activity confined to any one field. The public services — 
particularly the Army — the Church, the administration of 
justice, especially by justices of the peace, and indeed almost 
every sphere of human activity where there was any wrong 
or misconduct that required castigation, brought perennial 
supplies of grist to the journalistic mill over which Horace 
Voules ruled in Carteret Street. 

Thus it came about that towards the end of the last 
century Truth had become a journal with a unique record, 
an influence that was felt — mostly for good — all over the 
English-speaking world, and incidentally a very valuable 
property. Before the end of the 'eighties it must have begun 
to yield Mr. Labouchere — a rich man independently of it — 
a larger income than would have sufficed for all his require- 
ments, which were never extravagant. The attitude of the 
parent towards his bantling, which had grown in such an 
unexpected fashion, was very much like his attitude towards 
everything else that happened to him in life. If he took any 
pride in his offspring, he did not manifest it openly; in a 
general way he betrayed no concern in its performances. 
When he visited the office, which he usually did for an hour 
or two on Monday and Tuesday mornings on his way to the 
House of Commons, it was only to correct the proofs of his 
own contributions — by this time almost entirely confined 



MR. LABOUCHERE AS A JOURNALIST 507 

to politics, except when he went abroad in the autumn — to 
consume a frugal lunch, and to chat about anything but the 
business of his paper with anybody whom he could find to 
talk to. 

A personal reminiscence of this period will show how 
strangely uninterested he was in the affairs of the paper which 
he was supposed by the public to direct. In the spring of 
1893, Horace Voules had a bad illness, the first of many, and 
as he kept the whole business of the office in his hands the 
situation was rather serious. I went down to see him at 
Brighton, where he lived for the last twenty years of his life, 
and heard from his doctor that if he ever came back at all it 
could not be for many weeks. On returning to town I went 
straight to the House of Commons and reported this alarm- 
ing intelligence to Mr. Labouchere. If I had reported it to 
the Speaker he could not have manifested less concern. 
What chiefly interested Mr. Labouchere was the nature and 
treatment of Voules' s ailment; he was always prepared to 
give advice, publicly or privately, on the preservation of 
health. " You know Voules eats a great deal too much, " he 
said, which was no doubt true. ' ' His doctor should do so and 
so. I will write to him at once. " I suggested to him that 
it might be more useful if he would write something for Truth, 
as we had not an editorial article in sight for next week. 
"You can do very well for once without an article, can't 
you?" was the staggering reply. I endeavoured to convey 
to him that there was a great deal of work at the office which 
somebody would have to do in Voules's absence, among 
other things about fifty letters a day requiring to be attended 
to. "I should not bother myself about answering letters 
if I were you," said my employer. This did not surprise 
me so much, for I had previously heard from Voules of our 
proprietor's golden rule for dealing with correspondence: "I 
never knew a letter yet, Voules, which would not answer 
itself if you left it alone for two months." It did not take 
many minutes' conversation to show that the editor was 



5o8 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

quite the last person from whom any assistance was hkely to 
be obtained in carrying on the paper in the emergency that 
had arisen ; at the same time I remember that we had a very 
interesting talk about the Home Rule Bill before I left him. 
I wondered afterwards what he would have said if I had 
written to him in his own words to Voules, "I don't think I 
shall bring the paper out next week." Probably it would 
not have disturbed him seriously. It should be added that 
he did write to Voules as he had promised — a very kind, 
sympathetic letter, in which he begged Voules above all 
things not to hurry back, and assured him that everything 
would go on all right in his absence. I forget whether he 
said that he would see to that, but it is quite possible that he 
did. It is a fact that the following week — the first in which 
Voules had been absent for about fifteen years — Mr. Labou- 
chere also omitted his customary visit to the office on a 
Monday morning. I suppose he thought that as Voules was 
away I should not have much time to talk to him. 

To those who were behind the scenes there was something 
ludicrous and something supremely " Laboucherean " in the 
contrast between this airy indifference to the fortunes of his 
journal, and the public conception of the proprietor as an 
indefatigable editor personally inspiring and directing all its 
performances. Possibly it amused Mr. Labouchere himself, 
but far more probably he never gave it a thought, for nothing 
in his life that appeared to other people abnormal ever 
presented itself in that light to him. To any one who knows 
the laissez-aller spirit in which he treated every affair of life, 
it cannot cause the slightest surprise that he allowed himself 
to drift into a position which was, on the face of it, somewhat 
equivocal. The best evidence of the view that he himself 
took of this anomalous position is afforded by the way it 
came to an end. Horace Voules chafed for a long time under 
his own relation to the titular editor, and it is really more 
difficult to understand his long acceptance of this position 
than Mr. Labouchere' s failure to do anything towards 



MR. LABOUCHERE AS A JOURNALIST 509 

altering it. The explanation in his case, no doubt, is that 
with the growth of the profits of the business he gradually 
came into a very handsome income, and he was a man who 
valued this a good deal more than personal glory. But he 
certainly felt aggrieved, as most men would, that so much of 
the credit of his work should go to another, and what per- 
haps annoyed him more was Mr. Labouchere's characteristic 
indifference to everything that was done in his name. Out 
of this there grew up a coolness between them, and at last 
Voules openly kicked. The moment the question of the 
editorship was raised in this way, Mr. Labouchere instantly 
conceded it, as Voules might have known he would. "My 
dear Voules, ' ' he said, in mild surprise. ' ' I don't want to be 
the editor. You can call yourself the editor if you like." 
In his own mind he probably said, " If you attach any value 
to such an absurd trifle, why, in the name of wonder, did 
you not say so before?" In this characteristic fashion, Mr. 
Labouchere divested himself of the last rags of editorship. 
Voules recounted the conversation to me immediately after 
it took place. I cannot fix the date precisely, but it was 
probably in 1897 or 1898. 

There remains little to be related of Mr Labouchere's 
career as a journalist. But it may assist the comprehension 
of what appears difficult to understand, in his relation to the 
real editorship of his paper during so many years, to refer 
to what passed between him and Voules on a lamentable 
occasion in 1902. At that time certain unfortunate circum- 
stances had come to light which made it impossible that 
Mr. Brousson should remain on the staff of Truth, or that 
Horace Voules should continue in the formal position of 
editor ; I trust I may be forgiven for referring in mere detail 
to the indiscretion of an old and dear friend and the sad end 
of a brilliant career. Mr. Labouchere, to whom the situation 
must have been as painful as to anybody, took counsel with 
Sir George Lewis, as a friend of both parties, and between 
them they excogitated an announcement for publication to 



510 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

the effect that Mr. Voules had resigned the editorship of 
Truth, but would remain associated with the paper. It was 
the least that could have been announced under the cir- 
cumstances, but naturally poor Voules fought hard against it, 
and a warm debate took place at Sir George Lewis's office. 
Voules wanted to know who was to be appointed editor, and 
in what capacity he himself was to be" associated with the 
paper. " He declined to submit to the humiliation of having 
to serve under one of his own subordinates. Mr, Labouchere 
told him that he did not see the necessity of appointing 
another editor. " You can't seriously propose that the paper 
is to be carried on without an editor," said Voules. "My 
dear Voules, " replied the proprietor, " I have now been con- 
nected with newspapers over forty years, and I have never 
yet discovered what an editor is. If you like, I will resume 
the editorship, but it seems to me quite unnecessary." 
So little did Voules understand his old friend even at that 
date that he came to me at the end of the interview in a 
terrible state of agitation, convinced that Labouchere was 
playing with him, and that he and I were to change places. 
Labouchere was, of course, perfectly serious, and for the 
next seven years Truth remained without an editor. I 
suppose that in all his life Mr. Labouchere never did a more 
extraordinary thing than this, judging by what would be 
considered ordinary conduct for a man in his position in such 
a case. Yet surely the extraordinary course which he took 
is an example of the way in which his habit of looking at 
the essential things in life, and snapping his fingers at con- 
ventions and traditions, guided him to the best possible 
solution of a serious difficulty. He regarded it as essential 
that Voules should not be formally and officially the man 
in control of the paper. He regarded it as equally essential 
— but how few would have done so ! — that the man who had 
served him so well and honourably for five-and-twenty 
years should not be cast out to end his days in disgrace. So 
he said : "I will have no editor in future. I see no necessity 



MR. LABOUCHERE AS A JOURNALIST 511 

for it. Manage as best ycu can without one!" Is not this 
really a stroke of genius, seeing that it is a solution of the 
difficulty that no one else would ever have dreamed of, that 
it is so perfectly simple, and that it effected everything that 
was really necessary? It also becomes easier, I think, after 
this to understand how Mr. Labouchere had previously 
allowed his paper to go on for about seventeen years under 
the editorship of its business "manager" without suspecting 
that there was anything anomalous in this arrangement until 
his manager surprised him by protesting against it. 

I feel that I cannot close this narrative of Mr. Labou- 
chere's relations with Truth without a reference to the 
termination of his sole proprietorship of that journal, for it 
was very characteristic of him. Slight as was the interest 
that he evinced in his property in his later years, he never 
seemed desirous of parting with it, naming a prohibitive price 
when any one offered to buy it, as many did, including 
Horace Voules. When, after poor Voules's death in 1909, 
I myself pressed him to turn his proprietorship into a com- 
pany, he politely but firmly declined, observing that he 
distrusted boards, and had always believed in finding a man 
who can manage your business for you and leaving him to do 
it. Undoubtedly that was the principle on which he had 
conducted many of his affairs. But in the end I ventured to 
suggest to him that it would be a great kindness to me and 
other members of his staff, who had been connected with 
the paper for many years, if he could see his way to put the 
proprietorship on a permanent footing, and save us from the 
possible results of a sale of the paper to the first bidder in 
the event of his predeceasing us. His response was instan- 
taneous and most sympathetic. He practically offered me 
an option on the paper at half the price he had asked Voules 
a few years previously, and interested himself warmly in 
explaining to me how I was to turn this opportunity to the 
best advantage. When the proposed deal did not promise to 
come off very speedily, he finally said that he would waive 



512 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

his objections to converting himself into a mere shareholder, 
and leave us to form a company, taking from him or placing 
with others such shares as we could. So ended Mr. Labou- 
chere's proprietorship of Truth — in an act of pure kindness of 
heart. It is an exact parallel to his easy-going abdication 
of the editorship at the first hint from Voules that the exist- 
ing position was rather hard on him. 

Mr. Labouchere was a man of most extraordinary char- 
acter. "He was an extraordinary person!" is the exclama- 
tion that one has heard a hundred times rising involuntarily 
to the lips of those who knew him well. The story of his 
connection with journalism is an extraordinary one, but as 
loosely sketched in the foregoing reminiscences it can give 
but an inadequate impression of what was most remarkable 
about him. This would be equally true of any mere narra- 
tive of the events of his career, or any collection of his dis- 
jointed utterances. In writing of him one is always in 
danger of conveying the impression that he was a mere 
eccentric or freak. In reality he was something very much 
more. Among other things he was one of the most prolific 
and spontaneous writers that ever lived, and everything that 
he wrote, however trivial the subject, bore some mark of 
his own unique personality. His love of his pen was perhaps 
his most vital characteristic ; it resembled, indeed, his love of 
his cigarette, and the two affections always came into play 
simultaneously. He would take up a pen anywhere, and 
commit his thoughts to paper without regard to external 
circumstances — during a debate in the House of Commons, 
during a children's party in Old Palace Yard, in a public 
room of an hotel. When abroad on his holidays he used to 
write contributions to Truth as regularly as if he were under 
contract to supply so much copy each week — evidently 
writing purely as a pleasure. Probably Mr. Labouchere is 
the only man who ever wrote for publication, systematically 
and voluminously, without ever being paid for what he 
wrote. Indirectly, of course, as the proprietor of Truth, 



MR. LABOUCHERE AS A JOURNALIST 513 

he profited by his contributions to his own paper; but 
nobody who knew him will suppose that this consideration 
ever presented itself to him as a motive for exertion. Neither 
was he actuated by that common weakness, love of seeing 
himself in print. On the contrary, what became of anything 
he wrote after he had produced it was a matter of profound 
indifference to him. "I am the only person, I believe, on 
the Press, " he wrote in his later days, in answer to an apology 
for consigning to oblivion a rather long-winded article 
forwarded from Florence, "who does not care in the least 
whether his lucubrations do or do not appear in print." 
He wrote to me many times in the same strain, and it was 
no doubt literally true. Frequently he would write an 
article and omit to post it ; sometimes he mislaid it perman- 
ently, sometimes he accidentally destroyed it. Sometimes 
he would send a second edition of an article already received 
and printed, explaining that he could not remember whether 
he had posted the first edition or torn it up by mistake. 
From long experience of him, I doubt whether he ever looked 
at anything he had written after it was printed and pub- 
lished, unless some accidental circumstance gave him occa- 
sion to refer to it. 

No man who ever wrote more strikingly exempUfied the 
aphorism "le style c'est I'homme." His style was entirely 
his own — a pure, spontaneous growth, neither derived from 
reading, nor formed by conscious effort. It reflected as 
vividly as his conversation the characteristics of his intellect, 
his lucidity of thought and expression, his quick apprehension, 
his distaste for display, his imconventional habit of mind, his 
dry humour, his naive wit. A very good judge, and an old 
acquaintance in Parliament, writing of him in the Saturday 
Review after his death, said that "Mr. Labouchere's prose 
was Voltairian." It was Voltairian because his mind was 
Voltairian, and because he reproduced on paper, instinctively 
and without effort, exactly what was in his mind. But it is 
out of place to speak of anything that Mr. Labouchere did 
33 



514 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

in terms of imcritical eulogy. On the technical side Mr. 
Labouchere's literary work was marred by the failings which 
beset him in everything he undertook — his repugnance to 
"taking trouble," and his supreme indifference. Although 
he would overhaul his proof mercilessly, and go on doing it 
as often as a proof was submitted to him, the process was 
generally that of expanding and rewriting, rarely of touching 
up and improving what he had written. He thought as 
little about "polishing up " a sentence for the sake of literary 
effect as of brushing his hat before he went for a walk. The 
consequence was that the inevitable blemishes in the work 
of a man who wrote so fluently, but never had the patience 
to read and correct his own manuscript, constantly made 
their appearance in print. No one who reads his work, 
knowing the way it was done, can doubt that he had it in 
him to enrich English literature with veritable masterpieces. 
It was the will that he lacked, not the ability, and so it was 
with nearly everything he undertook. 

Mr. Labouchere was a man of genius — genius real, 
original, and many-sided. The signs of it are evident in 
almost everything he did, including his mistakes and his 
eccentricities. But he had the misfortune to be born very 
rich, and if he was not by nature indolent he acquired an in- 
dolent habit of mind through never being under the necessity 
of exerting his powers to their full capacity. His genius 
was of the critical, not the creative order, and this also 
contributed to his forming a view of life inconsistent with 
strenuous exertion, for it led him to despise nearly everything 
that men ordinarily prize, success in all its shapes included. 
During all the time I knew him, his attitude towards life 
was that of a man playing a game, interested in it certainly, 
but only for the amusement it afforded him. It is worthy of 
note that he confesses to having been in youth an inveterate 
gambler, and having given up play because he found that it 
was acquiring too much hold over him. To be interested in 
everything, but too much interested in nothing, was a cardi- 



MR. LABOUCHERE AS A JOURNALIST 515 

nal principle of his life. Few men have ever incurred more 
obloquy, and many worthy people regarded him with aver- 
sion; but it was only from misunderstanding or lack of 
knowledge. To this he himself contributed by his perverse 
habit of self-depreciation, his indifference to the opinions of 
his fellow-men, and the amusement he found in mystifying 
them. It is absurd to put him on a pedestal — a position 
which he never allowed any one else, and which he took good 
care to show he never desired for himself. But it was 
impossible to be much in contact with him without appre- 
ciating that he was a being of a rare order of intellect, 
with something in him that placed him above the ordinary 
failings and foibles of humanity, however much he might 
try to magnify his own. It was my privilege to know him 
pretty closely for over thirty years, and very intimately for 
the last ten. Though he did in that time many things that 
one would have wished he had not done, and said many that 
would have been better left unsaid, I can look back to him 
now only with admiration for his wisdom and his wit, and 
affection for his drolleries and his indiscretions, no less than 
for his many virtues. 

There comes back to me the last time I sat with him, by 
the side of the lake at Cadennabia. " Let us get away from 
this beastly band, " he had said, in the hall of the hotel after 
dinner, "one can't hear oneself speak." So we sat down 
outside, and he rambled on: "I can't think why people 
want bands when they come here. Wonderful place this 
for stars ! What I like about it is that you can see them in 
the lake without craning your neck. I sit here and follow 
Bacon's advice: look at the stars in the pond instead of in 
the sky, and you won't tumble into the pond. There was a 
Greek named Pythagoras — or some ass at any rate — who 
comforted himself with the notion that in the future state 
he would be able to hear the music of the spheres. Who 
wants to hear the music of the spheres? Bother that band! 
What strikes me most about the stars is that they do their 



5i6 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

work so quietly. Pythagoras picked up his notions in the 
East — probably from the Jews. They imagined angels with 
harps and a perpetual concert in heaven. Good God! 
Think of having to sit at a concert for all eternity ! Wouldn't 
you pray to be allowed to go to hell? The only reason that 
I can see for desiring immortality would be the chance of 
meeting Pythagoras and the other asses, and having a few 
words with them. Now Socrates was not an ass. He was 
for banishing musicians from his republic. No doubt he 
saw that this would get him a lot of republican votes. 

Gladstone once said to me " 

And then he dropped ofE to sleep. He was beginning by 
that time to doze at odd times, though all his life it was 
characteristic of him not to be able to take his sleep Hke an 
ordinary mortal. And not long after I left him sitting there 
by the lake, sleep finally overcame him, and he passed out 
into the night, to learn more of the silence of the stars, and 
to have it out, if possible, with Pythagoras. 



CHAPTER XIX 
THE CLOSING YEARS 

UPON only one occasion in his life could a charge of 
Jingoism have been brought against Mr. Labouchere. 
The last long speech he made in the House of Commons was 
against the second reading of the Women's Enfranchisement 
Bill, in which he said that he objected to women being given 
the vote because they could not be soldiers ; in short, because 
their physical limitations prevented them from being able to 
take a place in the battlefield. A member pointed out that 
the speaker himself was not a military man. With passion 
he replied that, whereas there was not a man alive who could 
not fight, and, if necessary, swim through seas of gore to 
protect his native land, the other sex were incapable of 
putting up with the hardships and privation involved in 
warfare. ^ 

It was in the third session of Mr. Balfour's Parliament 
that Mr. Labouchere made his last speech in the House of 
Commons. He was nearly seventy-four years old, and had 
been hankering for some time after the delights of a reposeful 
old age in the retirement of the beautiful villa he had bought 
in the neighbourhood of Florence four years before. Sir 
Henry Campbell Bannerman had written to him in the pre- 
vious December, when a rumour of his intended retirement 
had reached him: "I hope you are not really thinking of 
breaking off with Parliament, though I frankly say it is what 

' May 12, 1905. 

517 



5i8 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

I should do if I could, who have the advantage of a year or 
two over you, but I think we old stagers with sound views 
are wanted to steady the new-century gentlemen by a little 
of o\ir early Victorian wisdom." But Mr. Labouchere was 
wise enough to know how dull it would be to exist in a modem 
Parliament as almost the only survivor of the grand old Vic- 
torian Radical party, whose sympathies and ideals, the 
policy of the Labour members alone resembled, in the remot- 
est degree. His mind was made up, but he kept his own 
counsel, except to his leader, because, as he wrote to Mr. 
Robert Bennett at the time of his retirement, a man who is 
known not to be going to stand again becomes a nonentity 
in Parliament. 

In a letter to Mr. Edward Thornton, the month before 
his withdrawal from public life, he gave his view of the 
Parliamentary situation at that time: 

Just now politics are dead. When Parliament meets, the 
Liberals will try to put the Government in a majority during the 
session, and Balfour will try to carry on to the end of it. There 
seems no reason why he should be beaten, provided that he can 
keep his men in the House. But this is also our difficulty. The 
individual M. P. never wants an election. . . . Campbell 
Bannerman is now alsolutely certain to be the next Premier unless 
his health breaks down. All that you see about this or that man 
in the Cabinet is only intelligent anticipation. He is not dejure 
on the succession to the Premiership, there are no consultations, 
and he has a wholesome distrust of his Front Bench friends who 
almost all have intrigued against him. I know him intimately, 
and he talks to me pretty freely, for I have expressed to him that 
I want nothing. At seventy-four a man is a fool to be a Minister. 

The news of Mr. Labouchere's retirement came as a 
surprise to most of the world. The first intimation to the 
public was his letter to the Liberal electors of Northampton 
announcing his decision. It was written from Florence, and 
dated December 14, 1905. It ran as follows: 



THE CLOSING YEARS 519 

Gentlemen, — I have been elected by a majority of you to 
represent you in six Parliaments. I have received no intimation 
from any of the Radicals, to whose votes I have owed my having 
been your member for twenty-five years, that they disapprove 
of my Parliamentary action whilst serving them, or that they do 
not wish me to be one of their candidates at the next general 
election. Were I, therefore, to come forward again as a candidate 
there is little doubt that I should be one of your representatives 
in a seventh Parliament. But I am now seventy-four years old. 
At that age a man is neither so strong nor active as he once was, 
and any one who wishes to represent efficiently a large and 
important constituency like yours in Parliament should be 
strong in wind and limb. I feel therefore that I ought not to 
take advantage of your consideration towards me in a matter 
so vital to you in order to lag superfluous on the political stage. 

I have delayed until now making this announcement because 
it was impossible to know when a general election would take 
place, and I thought that it would be more convenient to you 
for me to wait until the date of the election was settled and near 
at hand. I do not think that my withdrawal will affect the 
position of parties in Northampton. In Dr. Shipman you have 
a member whose Parliamentary action has been in accord with 
the pledges that have already secured his return, and on whose 
personal worth all are agreed. You will have no difficulty in 
finding a man to replace me, as eager to promote the cause of 
democracy as I am, and who will be better able to fight for the 
cause than one in the sere and yellow leaf. 

Mr. Labouchere remarked once, that he had on one 
occasion only been asked by a constitutent for a pledge with 
regard to his Parliamentary action. He had unhesitatingly 
given it, and been unflinchingly true to his word. The 
elector's injunction had been, "Now, mind, I say, and keep 
your hi on Joe. " But whether the story is a slight exaggera- 
tion of the confidence his constituents had in him to faith- 
fully represent their views at Westminster or not, it gives 
elliptically a description of his attitude during the twenty-five 
years he served the electors of Northampton. He became 



520 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

their member as an anti-Imperialist, in Lord Beaconsfield's 
interpretation of the term, and he took his leave of them 
as an anti-Imperialist, in the more modern, and what may 
be called "Chamberlain" sense of the word. 

I shall quote Mr. T. P. O'Connor's farewell on the occa- 
sion of his retirement, which he published under the title of 
"The Passing of Labby, " for, apart from its literary merit, 
it is the fine appreciation of a friend of many years' standing, 
who knew the value of Mr. Labouchere from the social as 
well as the Parliamentary and journalistic points of view: 

There is no old member of the House of Commons who will not 
feel a pang of personal regret at hearing that Labby is leaving that 
Assembly. No one has a right to criticise a man for giving up an 
active life at seventy-four years of age — he has done his work. 
But Labby had become an almost essential part of the House of 
Commons; and there never will be anybody who can quite take 
his place there. That extraordinary combination of strong party 
zeal, with a lurking desire to make mischief; the sardonic and 
satirical spirit, mingled with a certain j&erce, though carefully 
concealed zeal for the public good; the mordant wit that was 
equally the delight of the House and of the smoking room; the 
world-wide and varied experience of all life in almost every 
country and in almost every form — these are the possessions of 
but one man, and his like we shall never see again. There are 
two Labbys. There is the Labby who almost corrodes with his 
bitter wit, and who seems to laugh at everything in life. There 
is the other Labby who has strong, stern purpose, who hates all 
shams, all cruelty, all imposture, all folly, and who has made war 
on all these things for more than a quarter of a century. There 
is even a third Labby — the man who hates to give pain even to 
a domestic, and who is laughingly said to have run out of a room 
rather than face the irritated looks of a maidservant whom he 
had summoned by too vigorous a pull at the bell. One of the 
reasons of the popularity Labby enjoyed in the House was his 
tolerant amiability. I have seen him in the smoking room in the 
most friendly converse with many a man whom in previous years 
he had most fiercely attacked; he bore no ill will, and treated all 



THE CLOSING YEARS 521 

those encounters as demanded by business, and as dismissable 
when the fight was over. Finally Labby was a far straighter, 
far more serious, far more effective politician than his own 
persiflage would allow people to think. With all his light wit, 
there was something stern and rigid in the man, as you could see 
from the powerful mouth, with the full compressed lips. He was 
perfectly honest in his hatred of extravagance, pretence, vain- 
glory. He preferred riding in a tramcar to riding in a coach and 
four. He dressed so shabbily sometimes that his counsel used 
to have to remonstrate with him when he had to answer a charge 
of libel. He was an ascetic in eating. Once he dined quite 
comfortably, when he was electioneering, on ham sandwiches with 
sponge-cake for bread. He rarely, if ever, tasted wine; he 
smoked incessantly the poorest and cheapest cigarettes. As he 
was in private, so he was in public life. He derided all great 
Imperial designs as snobbery and extravagance; he hated am- 
bition — in short, he was in both his personal habits and his 
public opinions, a true devotee of the simple life. He did im- 
mense service to his party in his time. During the heat of the 
Home Rule controversy he spoke in scores of towns; took 
journeys by night and by day, never spared himself exertion, 
never complained of discomfort; in his laughing air, with his 
assumed air of languor, he was a strenuous, manly, courageous 
fighter. And he never changed, he never concealed, he never 
explained away his opinion upon anything. And so I bid him 
with regret farewell from a scene where he was a model of honest 
good faith and courage. ^ 

So Labby goes! [mourned the Morning Post]. What Parlia- 
ment and public life will be without him, I hate to think. The 
letter of cheery regrets to his Northampton constituents sub- 
tracts the sauce piguante from the Parliamentary dish. The 
House has long counted Labby as the last of its originals, has 
prized him as a refreshing relish, has looked to him for the un- 
expected flavour. All strangers would ask inevitably to have 
him pointed out, and the House would fill at once when the word 
went round the corridors and lobbies and smoking rooms that 
Labby was "up" and holding forth from his customary corner 

^ Jlf.id.P., Dec. 30, 1905. 



522 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

seat below the gangway — the best of all positions from which to 
address the House. So too the smoking room became suddenly 
crowded when Labby was to be seen standing there with back 
to fireplace, the eternal cigarette between his lips, ready for talk. 
It gives a peculiar pang to realise that he will be seen there no 
more. But the pang is lessened when one finds Labby — Labby 
of all men — seriously pleading old age as a ground for his retire- 
ment. It sounds like one of his little jokes, or, perhaps, it is a 
genuine case of hallucination, Labby had possibly a touch of 
old age at twenty, but he had also the sense to outgrow it. Since 
then he has never relapsed, and now in the seventy-fifth year of 
his youth, and with a pen several years younger, it is a vain and 
commonplace and un-Labbyish thing to pretend that youth and 
he are no longer "housemates still. " An unbelieving world will 
not accept that plea . . . . I daresay that, half a century ago, 
Labby was, not unlike the wise youth Adrian in Meredith's 
Richard Fever el, quite unnaturally cool and quizzical, long-headed 
and non-moral, but an Adrian humanised by something of the 
Bohemian spirit and a turn for careless pleasuring. And in those 
days, no doubt — his Eton and Cambridge days — he struck his 
contemporaries as really old. But no one, for fifty years, has 
ever accused him of not having overcome his early weakness ; 
and it was the very last charge I ever expected to hear Labby 
prefer against himself.^ 

There was something about Mr. Labouchere's personal- 
ity, apart from his deeds and thoughts, which appealed almost 
irresistibly to the affectionate sympathies of all mankind. 
To find an ill-natured comment in any of the articles that 
were published about him in the press when he left the House 
of Commons is so difficult that, were such a one to be 
recorded in this volume, it would give its author an almost 
unenviable position of distinction. But in order to be 
perfectly impartial, I shall merely quote the pleasant part 
of the only one I could find, so that its writer need not feel 
that he has been placed in an out-of-the-way comer with a 
fool's cap on his head : 

' Morning Post, Dec. 23, 1905. 



THE CLOSING YEARS 523 

On the whole Mr. Labouchere has done a great deal of good 
in his life, more good and less evil than many so-called statesmen. 
He has exposed swindlers and moneylenders and rotten compa- 
nies. He has obtained for the public the right to ride, drive, and 
walk up and down Constitution Hill. No victim of cruelty 
or injustice ever appealed to him for a hearing in vain. Above 
all he wrote an English style of remarkable purity, logic, and 
humour. 

Letters of regretful farewell poured in upon Labby in 
his Florentine home, and he possessed a kindly characteristic 
common to nearly all frankly unpretentious human beings. 
He loved his post. In his cosy armchair by the fire he read 
his letters and enjoyed them, and what was more — he 
proceeded to answer them. No pre-occupation, however 
diverting, ever prevented him from, at the first available 
moment sitting down to his writing-table, and, in the almost 
illegible hand which he vainly tried to improve, penning 
answers to his welcome correspondents. 

"I have been very sorry, but not surprised," wrote Sir 
Henry Campbell Bannerman to him on Christmas Day, "to 
read in the newspapers of your retirement. It is not over 
kind of you to put it on the ground of age, for that hits some 
of the rest of us hard. For my part, I confess my sentiment 
when I read it was : si sic omnes — and envy was the prevail- 
ing feeling. But, seriously, we shall miss you greatly as one 
always ready to hoist the flag of the old Liberalism, as dis- 
tinguishable from the less stout and stalwart doctrine which 
passes for Liberalism with the modems. 

"But now as you are going would you care to have the 
House of Commons honour of Privy Councillor? If so 
it would be to me a genuine pleasure to be the channel of 
conveying it. You ought to have had it long ago. I may 
add that in the highest quarter gratification would be felt- 
I have taken soundings. I think we have done and are doing 
pretty well. The Government are pretty well the pick of 
the basket, though there are some good men left out, and I 



524 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

think we can make it a change of policy and not a mere 
change of men. All seasonable wishes to you and yours. — 
Yours always, 

''H. C. B." 

"Knowing you to be a wise man," wrote Lord Selby, 
who had been Speaker of the House in three of the six 
Parliaments of which Mr. Labouchere had been a member, 
" I was not surprised to see that you had made up your mind 
to eschew Westminster, and enjoy Florence and its climate, 
but if I were still in the Chair I should miss you in the next 
Parliament, and I am sure the smoking-room will be a forlorn 
place without you; and I do not see how the loss is to be 
repaired, for it takes a good many years to grow a plant of the 
same kind. I wish you and Mrs. Labouchere long leisure 
and much pleasure in your Italian home, seasoned with 
occasional visits to England. The election may be said to 
have begun with Balfour's speech at Leeds, and Campbell 
Bannerman's at the Albert Hall. . . ." 

The leader of the Irish party wrote from Dublin: 

"Dear Labouchere, — ^When writing the other day, I 
did not know that you had any idea of retiring from Parlia- 
ment . I learned your intention with deep regret . You have 
been so long one of the truest friends of Ireland that you will 
be missed by us all, and at a time when we can badly spare 
a real friend. With heartiest good wishes, and many thanks 
for your advice and assistance on so many occasions, I remain 
very truly yours, 

"J. E. Redmond." 

" I have just read your farewell to Northampton, " wrote 
Sir Wilfrid Lawson, on December 17, "and it has troubled 
me. I am going to stand again for Cockermouth (I am older 
than you!) with a fair chance of success, but, if I win and 
get back to the House, I shall feel that it is not exactly the 
same place without you. I therefore just write this to say 
how sorry I am to lose you. Certainly you have always held 
up bravely and ably the banner of the Radicalism in which 



THE CLOSING YEARS 525 

I believe, and it remains to be seen whether we shall get it 
as well held up in the Parliament which is to be. Any way 
those who believe in Government * of, for, and by the people, ' 
ought to be grateful to you for your persistent preaching and 
teaching of that doctrine. 

"The new Government promises well, but I remember a 
story on which you trenchantly commented in Truth some 
years ago. When Lord Dudley was married it was proposed 
in the Kidderminster Corporation that they should give him a 
wedding present, on which an old weaver rose and suggested 
that it should be postponed ' till we see how he goes on. ' 

"Well, I hope that you will go on well and happily till the 
end of your days, and, meantime, not forget to give outside 
help to your old comrades, who for a bit longer are grinding 
in the Parliamentary mill." 

Lord James of Hereford wrote: 

"The announcement of yoiu" departure from the House 
of Commons seems almost to affect me personally. I recall 
a day in the end of August, 1868, when you and I and John 
Stamforth were sitting in front of the Kursaal at Homburg. 
You and I were discussing our relative chances in Middlesex 
and at Taunton, and then you asked Stamforth how he was 
getting on at Athlone. "I am member for Athlone, " 
replied that unfortunate man, who afterwards, as you know, 
polled one vote. 

' 'Well, the water has been flowing on since then. You and 
I have seen a good deal of political life, and taken a fair 
share in it. I hope we have not done much harm, but 
Heaven only knows. I am very sorry that you are not 
continuing in the fight .... 

"I know how little I can do, for I am three years older than 
you are — but the House of Lords offers some opportunities 
for easy going to an old one." 

" Dear Labouchere, " wrote Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, 
— "We have enjoyed sweet converse together in the House 
of Commons and in the woods of Marienbad on * men and 



526 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

things.' We are both leaving the House of Commons at 
the same time, so I send you a word of greeting — or farewell, 
or by whatever other name it may be appropriate to describe 
these words. ... A short Parliament generally follows 
a long Parliament, and I expect to see this canon once 
more illustrated. " 

"The New York Herald of this morning announces your 
appointment as a P. C," wrote Sir Edmund Monsonfrom 
Paris. " I am very glad that you have received this distinc- 
tion, which, in my own case, I have always regarded as the 
most acceptable of all that have been bestowed on me . . . . 
I can quite understand your relinquishing Parliament, and 
I hope you may long enjoy the otium cum dignitate which no 
place better than Florence can supply. . . . Believe 
me, always your sincere old friend, 

"Edmund Monson. " 

Lord Brampton wrote on the last day but one of the 
year: "I have just received your note. Your reasons for 
retirement from Parliament are unreasonable. But, as 
far as I am concerned, although I have not a word of objec- 
tion to offer, still I remain sorry. With all my heart I 
rejoice in to-day's Times, and offer to you, my right hon- 
ourable friend, my heartiest congratulations to you and all 
yours, and every good wish for the coming New Year. I 
wish I could avail myself of your invitation to Florence, 
but I fear I have no chance, as I am very weak still and can 
hardly hold a pen. " 

Only one other letter must be quoted from the friends 
of Labby's youth. Sir Henry Lucy wrote on Christmas 
Day: 

"My dear Labouchere, — You will find in the forth- 
coming issue of Punch some reflections on 'The Sage of 
Queen Anne's Gate,' from the Diary of Toby, M. P. I 
believe they echo the feeling of the whole House of Commons, 
irrespective of party, at the prospect of your withdrawal 
from the scene. 



THE CLOSING YEARS 527 

"But why cut Westminster altogether? There is still the 
House of Lords. If I might behold you walking out shoulder 
to shoulder with the Archbishop of Canterbury to vote 
'content' or 'not content' as the case might be, I should feel 
I had not lived in vain. . . . With a warmth and friend- 
ship dating back nearly thirty years — Eheu! we were col- 
leagues on the World staff in 1875. " 

Toby, M. P., recalled in a pathetic little article in Punch 
the way Mr. Gedge had tried to do Labby out of his corner 
seat below the gangway, where Sir Charles Dilke had sat 
beside him on one side of the House or the other ever since 
Mr. Gladstone's Parliament of 1892. In order to secure a 
seat in the House, members had to be present at the reading 
of prayers, during which any one could slip a card with his 
name upon it into the back of the place he wanted. Now 
Labb}/" was never at prayers, and yet, Mr. Gedge noticed, 
he had always had the same seat secured to himself in the 
orthodox manner. Accordingly, one day he allowed his 
thoughts to wander whilst the House of Commons devotions 
were proceeding, and his eyes followed his thoughts. Be- 
tween his fingers held devoutly before his face, he peeped, 
and noticed Sir Charles Dilke, buried in prayer as usual. 
Then he saw his devotion relax for a moment. Sir Charles 
was slipping a card into the back of the seat which he intended 
to secure for himself, and Mr. Gedge was horrified to see that 
he proceeded to slip a card with Labby' s name upon it into 
the back of the next one — the coveted corner seat below the 
gangway. Mr. Gedge subsequently drew the attention of 
the House to this piece of underhand dealing, but hon- 
ourable gentlemen did not choose to take any notice of 
what would clearly not have been observed, if Mr. Gedge 
had been paying proper attention to his prayers. 

A propos to the seating accommodation in the House 
of Commons, it should be remembered that as far back as 
1893, when the disgraceful scrimmage for seats took place 
at the introduction of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill, 



528 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

Mr. Labouchere had begun to agitate for a new House of 
Commons with seats for every member. He explained to a 
journalist at the time his plan for an ameliorated House: 

"At present, " he said, " a man goes before a constituency 
and, after a lot of trouble and expense, wins a seat — so it is 
called. He then comes up here to Westminster, and finds he 
has gone through only half the preliminaries necessary for 
securing a seat. He has taken only the first steps, which are 
simply child's play to what he has yet to do. Getting 
elected is simply nothing comparatively. First I wanted an 
octagonal chamber," he proceeded, "but I find general 
opinion will retain the present form. So my idea is to have 
eight rows of seats on each side of the House, curving round 
at the end opposite to the Speaker. If each row will seat 
forty-two members, you will find that will provide a seat 
for the whole six hundred and seventy-two. Then every 
one could retain his seat throughout the session. The 
difficulty about the square shape of the House is that it gives 
you an equal number of seats for each party and the Govern- 
ment is generally in a majority. That is why I would run 
the seats round at one end — so that the supporters of the 
Government could have the whole of one side, and as far as 
the second gangway on the other. Having a broader House 
would necessarily mean enlarging the Press and Strangers' 
Galleries also. AU the members are in favour of it, with the 
exception of the front benches. They have got their seats 
assured, so they say that the House is cosy, and to enlarge it 
would force them to pitch their voices higher." The jour- 
nalist who was interviewing him commented on the extreme 
moderation of his designs for an ameliorated House of 
Commons. "Oh," remarked Mr. Labouchere, "these are 
just the alterations we shall probably make. What I 
personally should have liked would be to clear the Lords 
out of their House, which is bigger than the House of 
Commons, and install ourselves therein."^ Eight years 

^ Penny Illustrated Paper, Feb. 25, 1893. 



THE CLOSING YEARS 529 

later he went to Vienna, and poured forth in Truth the 
story of his envy when he saw the Austrian House of 
Deputies : 

I went to see the Parliament House, and, after inspecting it, 
I felt that I could with pleasure join a mob to disinter the remains 
of the eminent architect who built the Palace at Westminster 
and hang his bones on a gibbet. The Vienna architect has 
erected a building which is Parliament Architecture. Everything 
is adapted to the wants and requirements of those who want to 
use it. The members of each of the two Chambers sit in a semi- 
circular room, and each member has an armchair and a desk 
before him. The general objection made to this plan of a delib- 
erative room is that it obliges members to speak from a tribune. 
But at Vienna they speak from their places, and, owing to the 
excellent acoustic properties of the Chamber, they can be per- 
fectly heard. I went over the place in the company of a priest 
who was visiting it at the same time. He perceived that I was 
an Englishman, and asked me how the place compared with the 
English Parliament House. "The members in England," I 
said, "sit in an oblong room, in which there are only places for 
half their number." "But what do the others do?" he asked. 
"They do not listen to the debates," I replied; "they seldom 
know what is under discussion. A bell rings and they come in, 
and are told to vote as their leader orders them." As a good 
Radical I felt it necessary to give a further explanation, so I 
continued: "The majority of the members are the supporters of 
the Government ; it is one of the worst Governments with which 
a country was ever cursed; it is called the 'stupid party,' and 
it is composed of Junkers and men who have made much money. 
They want the laws to be made for their benefit, and not for the 
benefit of the poor." "But why," he said, "do they have a 
majority, for I suppose that the poor have votes as well as the 
rich, and there must be more poor than rich in England?" 
"They gained their election by corruption and falsehood," I 
answered. "Their wives and their daughters went about giving 
the electors feasts, and they went about saying everywhere that 
the Radicals wanted to destroy the Empire. In this way they 
34 



530 HENRY LABOUCHEEE 

bought some with gifts, and others they deceived with false- 
hoods. Soon the electors discovered how they had been fooled, 
and for five years they have wanted to take away the Government 
from the 'stupids, ' but, by our laws, a Parliament is elected for 
seven years, and the country is still obliged to submit to the dis- 
grace of having such a Government for one or perhaps two more 
years. Then there will be another election, and the 'stupids' 
will be in a minority, and the Radicals who represent the 
sense and intelligence of the country will become the Govern- 
ment." "And the Radicals," he said, "will, I suppose, make a 
Chamber large enough to hold all the members." "I am not 
sure of that," I answered. This seemed to surprise him, but he 
thanked me for having made clear to him the party differences 
in England.^ 

But my story is wandering backwards instead of forwards. 
And so stories usually do in the City of Flowers, where the 
present is so full of ease and pleasure that a man's mind is 
free to linger where it will, either lazily in the middle ages, 
or to stray with graceful discrimination in the bye paths of 
memory to find the savour again of some of the deeds of a 
gallant past. He may choose, perhaps, to grasp contentedly 
and almost without effort, the gifts of the gods that lie 
about in profusion, but he must always remember that care 
and earnestness, strenuousness and ambition have no place 
in Florence. It was of course a home after Mr. Labouchere's 
own heart. He went to London in the January of 1906 
to be sworn in as a Privy Councillor, and, in February, he 
came back with delight to his villa to enjoy the merry 
continental train de vie he had always loved. 

Whilst in London, he wrote to Mr. Edward Thornton, 
who was then in India: 

I did not, as you see, stand. At seventy-four one gets bored 
even with politics. I am only over here for a fortnight, as I have 
to get sworn into the Privy Council. The Unionists have been 
^ Truth, Sept. 21, 1900. 



THE CLOSING YEARS 531 

beaten badly, because they seem to have gone out of their way 
to court defeat. One never knows what may happen, but they 
will remain in a minority for the next twenty years, if they run 
on Protectionist lines. Joe swaggers and has captured the 
machine, and Balfour would do well to fight him instead of knock- 
ing under to him. The Chinese labour helped us greatly. They 
ought to have known that the old anti-slavery feeling is still 
strong, but they seem to imagine that every one has Rand 
shares. . . . The really important thing connected with the 
election is the rise of a Labour Party. I do not think, however, 
that there are above six M. P.'s returned who are bona fide 
and Socialists, they are all jealous of each other. 

He wrote to Mr. Thornton again on March 10: 

I had had enough of Parliament, for one gets bored with every- 
thing. ... I have not the slightest notion what a Privy 
Councillor is, except that I had to take half a dozen oaths at a 
Council, which were mumbled out by some dignitary, and then 
Fletcher Moulton, who was also being sworn in, and I performed 
a sort of cake walk backwards. I don't precisely know whither 
we shall go in the summer — for it is such a relief to let the day 
take care of the day. It is lucky C. B. has so large a majority, 
otherwise things would have been difficult with the Labour lot — 
far more difficult than with the Irish. 

Mr. Labouchere's most regular correspondent up till the 
time of his death in January, 191 1, was Sir Charles Dilke. 
The friendship between them had continued uninterruptedly 
since 1880. Two letters that Mr. Labouchere wrote to Sir 
Charles Dilke in 1910 have an especial interest, bearing as 
they do upon the problem that had always interested Mr. 
Labouchere so keenly throughout the whole of his political 
career, and which, in the first twentieth century Liberal 
Parliament, had assumed a new aspect. The first of these 
letters was written on February 1 1 : 

My dear Dilke, — What is the Government going to do in 
regard to the Lords? I can understand a one-Chamber man, in 



532 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

default of getting directly what he wants, trying to get it indirectly, 
by having a sham Upper Chamber. But if the Government has 
to appeal to the country on a suspensory veto, I doubt this creating 
much enthusiasm. If it be carried, this suspensory vote would, 
of course, be used by the Peers for all that it is worth when a 
Liberal Government is in to throw batons dans leurs roues. I 
should have thought, with the experience of the last Parliament, 
that it would be realised that Peer obstruction, cleverly managed, 
could reduce any Liberal Government to ridicule and contempt. 
So long as a Reform is hung up by the Lords, the electors have 
no heart in further Liberal legislation, which, in its turn, would 
also be hung up. A Party with a H. of C. majority at its back 
cannot afford to be unable to carry through its measures. Why 
not go at once for the abolition of the H. of Peers, and its being 
replaced by some sort of an elected Upper Chamber? Nothing 
is easier than to contrive one. The basis would be the constitu- 
tion of the U. S. Senate mutatis mutandis. It should have only 
one half of the membership of the H. of C, and if the two Houses 
cannot agree, then they should sit and vote together on the issue. 
Notwithstanding the curious way in which Senators are elected 
in the Senate of the U. S., I never heard of any serious proposal 
to alter this. Its main strength is due to its executive powers, 
and this we need not provide for in our Senate. With any 
reasonable plan of election, and the members reduced to about 
300, it is odds against there ever being a majority of one Party 
of above 40 or 50. No Government at present can get on 
long without a certain majority of slaves of more than this in 
the Commons, so the Commons would always get their way. I 
have been at times a President of and a member of several 
Abolition of Lords Associations, and have advocated abolition 
in thousands of speeches in the country. The feeling was 
generally against hereditary Legislators, for this comes home to all 
as an absurd abuse. If I were in the House I would move an 
amendment on the Address against hereditary Legislators, and 
the vast majority of the Government supporters would vote for 
it, as they would most of them be afraid of their electors. What 
surprises me is that the Unionists do not counter the plans of the 
Government by many such an amendment. They are sacrificing 
what is their interest to a lot of obscure Peers, who are of no 



THE CLOSING YEARS 533 

importance. As for the House of Lords, with only a suspensory- 
veto, it is worthless to them, except for tactical obstruction in 
order to discredit a Liberal Government. 

It is rather curious that if the H. of C. reflects the opinions 
of the country there is a majority for Tariff Reform, as all the 
National M. P.'s are Protectionists. As it is, they will find it 
difficult to vote for the Budget, with O'Brien painting Ireland 
red against it. He is a power in Ireland, and Redmond is 
perfectly aware of it. Anyhow the manoeuvring in the H. of C. 
and the Debates will be amusing. There will be difficulties with 
the Labour men, headed by Keir Hardie. If I were the Unionists 
I would buy him. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

The second was written on November 17, and ran as 
follows : 

My dear Dilke, — . . . It is a curious thing that in the 
discussions about Home Rule all round, no one has pointed out 
that in the German Empire Bavaria occupies a peculiar position. 
It has far more independent rights than any other State. It was 
only on these terms that it came into the Empire, for there is no 
great love lost between the Prussians and the Bavarians. Yet 
it sends its quota of representatives to the Reichsrath. Therefore 
there seems to me no particular reason why, if there be Home 
Rule all round, the position of Ireland should not be that of 
Bavaria. 

I confess that I do not think much of the Government pro- 
posal in regard to the veto. It seems to me a stupid arrangement. 
The Upper Chamber is a fifth wheel on the coach which only can 
make itself a nuisance by persistent obstruction, which in two 
years is swept aside automatically. My experience in going to 
lots of anti-Lords Meetings led me to the conclusion that the 
country hates an Upper Chamber on hereditary lines, but does 
not quite believe in a Single Chamber which is absolute master. 
Why does no one propose to " scrap " the H. of L. and to have an 
elected Upper House, one-third of whose members are renewed 
by election every two years, or some such period? This would 
be on the lines of the U.S. Senate, only with a popular franchise, 



534 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

instead of the strangely illogical one of the U.S. Such an Upper 
Chamber would probably be conservative in the real, and not the 
party sense of the word, and yet command respect. It would 
rarely act except when the decision of the H. of C. was influenced 
by a small minority, threatening to turn the Government out if 
it did not knock under to it. Were the Unionists to come forward 
with such a scheme, they might very probably get a majority. — 
Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

After Sir Charles Dilke's death, Mr. Labouchere wrote the 
following interesting letter to Lord Channing, dated Feb. i8 : 

Dear Channing, — No, I am not writing any memoirs. I 
shall find it more agreeable to read yours than to do so. . . . 
I knew him (Dilke) very well since his start in politics. When 
in the House, he was the only man well up, particularly in 
domestic legislature, and, really, it is thanks to him that many 
useful measures were passed. In explaining them, however, he 
was too apt to lose himself in minor details. In foreign politics 
he never clearly knew what he wanted, and he was given to 
believe in mares' nests which he thought he had picked up 
abroad. . . . He fancied that he would be able to become 
the leader of the Labour M. P.'s. They were ready to 
profit by his speeches, but it soon became clear that they 
would only have a Labour M. P. for their leader. We started 
a sort of Labour Party with a Whip. But they came to me 
and said that it must be understood that he was not to be 
either President or Chairman. In the main this was due to 
jealousy of him. ... I did all that I could with Campbell 
Bannerman for him to be in the Cabinet. Campbell Bannerman 
hesitated. Then Morley made a speech asserting that the 
Liberals would not be satisfied unless he was included. At once 
the Bishop of Rochester and a head dissenter (I think it was 
Clifford) published letters protesting. Campbell Bannerman 
then pointed to these letters, and said that we should have a 
split in the party if he were in the Cabinet. Personally, I quite 
agree with you as to his ostracism from office, but you know 
what the English are, and particularly the dissenters. . . . 



THE CLOSING YEARS 535 

Why did you resign your seat? It was a perfectly safe one. 
I resigned because I had got to an age, when I got tired out at 
a long sitting. It is curious I was with Campbell Bannerman 
and his wife and mine. She wanted him to give it up, as his 
doctor had told him that he ought to. I urged him to go on. He 
said that this was odd advice, when I had said that I should 
do so, and he was younger than I was. I replied that it was 
worth taking risks to be Prime Minister, but not for anjrthing 
else. And he is dead and I alive. . . . 

If ever you want to rest calmly you must come down here 
and see me. I have a big villa close to Florence, and live a 
vegetable existence. — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

A great grief befell Mr. Labouchere in 19 10. He and 
Mrs. Labouchere had been spending the summer as usual at 
Villa d 'Este and Cadenabbia, and had returned to Florence 
in the early days of October. Never had Mrs. Labouchere 
appeared to be in better health and spirits. On the evening 
of the 30th October, she had delighted every one with her 
inimitable reading aloud of David Copperfield, and life at 
Villa Cristina, on that day, had seemed, if possible, more 
joyous and serene than usual. The next morning the blow 
fell, but so gently as to be almost imperceptible. Mrs. 
Labouchere, feeling a little giddy on rising, had returned to 
her bed to allow the temporary sickness to pass ojEf . By the 
afternoon she was beginning to slip away into unconscious- 
ness, and before the bells in the neighbouring convent had 
begun to welcome the dawn of the Tutti Santi, she had gone 
forth alone on her last long journey. 

The winter of 19 10 and 191 1 passed quietly away for 
Mr. Labouchere. His days were cheered by the constant 
presence of his daughter, who had married Marchesa Carlo 
di Rudini, the son of the former Prime Minister of Italy, and 
Mr. Thomas Hart Davies stayed with him till Christmas 
Day, returning to Florence again in the early spring. A 
succession of visitors from England and Rome kept the house 



536 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

gay and lively as he loved to have it, always provided that 
he had to take upon himself none of the activities or responsi- 
bility of entertaining. "I am merely a passenger on the 
ship, " he would say, when he wanted to wriggle out of any 
active participation in the organisation of whatever might 
be going on. But it always happened to be towards the 
corner of the ship where that particular passenger was 
resting that the pleasure and interest of every one converged. 
It was not so much the charm of his talk, that was, perhaps, 
more entertaining in his old age than it had ever been, as the 
extraordinarily youthful and never failing interest that 
he continued to take in the affairs of every one else that 
made him the best conversationalist in the world. 
No little event of the smallest human interest was 
too trivial to amuse him, and to awake the never fail- 
ing source of his mother wit. He passed the summer at 
Villa Cristina and went to Villa d'Este in September. 
Though his spirits were as gay and unflagging as ever 
throughout the winter, it was easy to see that his phys- 
ical strength was beginning to weaken. The walk which 
he took daily round his garden fatigued him so much that, 
by Christmas, he had given up even that mild form of 
exercise. 

He experienced another bereavement during the winter in 
the death of his oldest and most intimately associated friend, 
Sir George Lewis. He felt his loss very deeply, and I 
remember that when he told me the news his voice was full 
of emotion. He related that Sir George Lewis had always 
looked upon him as his mascotte. "As long as you're alive , 
and flourishing, Labby, " he used to say, " I shall be all right i 
too, so mind you take care of yourself. " "Just shows what ' 
nonsense all those things are, " continued Mr. Labouchere, ' 
"for here am I as well and strong as ever, and there is 
poor Lewis dead and gone." The return of Mr. Hart 
Davies to the Villa early in December cheered him up 
immensely, and his devoted friend did not leave his side 



THE CLOSING YEARS 537 

again, until the last sad morning when he bade farewell to 
him on the hill of San Miniato. 

It was fitting perhaps that almost the last letter that Mr. 
Labouchere should have written, should have been to one of 
his old theatrical friends. Mr. Charles James Sugden, the 
actor, wrote to him and asked him to write a preface to his 
(Sugden's) forthcoming volume of Reminiscences. Here is 
Mr. Labouchere's reply: 

Villa Cristina, Jan. 4, 1912. 

My dear Sugden — You ask me to write a preface to your 
forthcoming book. I don't think that I ever read one in my life, 
for they always seem to be platitudes, impertinently thrust for- 
ward by some person who has an exaggerated idea of his own 
importance, in order to hinder me from getting at what I really 
do want to read. Good wine needs no bush, and I shall be 
greatly disappointed if I do not derive great pleasure from read- 
ing yours, for you have been brought into close contact with so 
many persons of note in their day, and some of whom are still 
in this world, and can throw many sidelights on them, and know 
many anecdotes about them. Pray bring it out as soon as 
possible. I am now over eighty, and at about that age senile 
imbecility commences, so I do not want it to make progress 
before I have had the opportunity to read the book and can 
appreciate it. ' — Yours truly, 

H. Labouchere. 

But it was not until the beginning of the second week in 
January that we all felt certain that he would never be well 
again. He was sauntering along so gently and carelessly, 
as only Labby knew how to saunter, towards the brink of 
the dark river. When the little heaps of cigarettes, that 
were arranged about his library so as to be always ready to 
his hand, ceased to dwindle as usual, it became clear to each 
and all that he must be very ill indeed. As simply as a child, 
tired with play, he took to his bed on the nth of January, 

^ The Referee, Jan. 21, 19 12. 



538 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

and did not get up again. He died peacefully at midnight 
on January 15, 1912. 

The earliest remark of Mr. Labouchere's that I have 
recorded in this book was a jest, and so was the last I heard 
him utter. On the afternoon of the day before he died, as 
I was sitting at his bedside, the spirit lamp that kept the 
fumes of eucalyptus in constant movement about his room, 
through some awkwardness of mine, was overturned. Mr. 
Labouchere, who was dozing, opened his eyes at the sound of 
the little commotion caused by the accident, and perceived 
the flare-up. "Flames?" he murmured interrogatively, 
"not yet, I think." He laughed quizzically, and went off 
to sleep again. 

The words in which Mr. Hart Davies conveyed the news 
of his end to Carteret Street are so beautiful in their simple 
directness that no others can fitly replace them in this 
biography : 

"His mind always remained perfectly clear. He took a 
lively interest in the German elections, the political crisis in 
France, and the events of the Italian-Turkish War. He was 
ever one for whom nothing that concerned the human race 
{nihil humani) was alien to his vivid intelligence. But his 
bodily powers were constantly declining, and on Monday, 
January 15, just before midnight, the end came, peacefully 
and painlessly, a fitting termination to the career of one who 
had ever been a fighter and ever in the forefront of the battle. 

"He was buried on Wednesday morning, under the cold 
drizzling rain of the Florentine winter, at San Miniato, in the 
same grave with his wife, who died some fifteen months before 
him. There, his tomb, at the edge of the western battlement 
of San Miniato, looks over the Tower of Galileo and the 
dark cypresses of Arcetri. It may be said of him, as Heine 
said of himself, that on his grave should be placed 'not a 
wreath, but a sword, for he was a brave soldier in the war 
for the liberation of humanity.'" 



THE CLOSING YEARS 539 

Before his death, he had expressed a strong wish as to 
the place of his burial. He wanted to rest beside his wife 
at San Miniato. But, when the arrangements for the funeral 
were about to be made, it was remembered that only- 
Catholics were permitted to lie in the beautiful cemetery of 
the Florentines. The difficulty seemed insuperable, and the 
preliminary steps had already been taken to bury him in the 
Protestant graveyard. His daughter, however, determined 
to leave no stone unturned so that she might carry out her 
father's dying wishes. An appeal was made to some munici- 
pal authority, and, by an extraordinary coincidence, that 
seemed to make Labby's funeral fit in with all the rest of his 
strange paradoxical career, it was ascertained that, just 
at that moment, the possession of the cemetery was passing 
out of the hands of the religious body to whom it had 
hitherto belonged, and was becoming the property of the lay 
ecclesiastical authority of the city, and there had been no 
time for new regulations or restrictions to be formulated. 
There were, therefore, from a legal point of view, none in 
existence, and so it turned out that Mr. Labouchere was 
permitted to lie in the spot that he had himself chosen. 

For many days after his death, the letters of condolence 
and sympathy from all quarters of the globe continued to 
pour into the deserted home. Of these one must assuredly 
be published, for it bears witness to the loyalty and affection 
that was unfailingly manifested to him by the borough he 
had represented for twenty-five years in Parliament. It 
was addressed to Marchesa di Rudini, by Mr. Edwin Barnes, 
the Secretary of the Northampton Liberal and Radical 
Association, and ran as follows: 



At a special meeting of the Executive Conmiittee of the 
above Association, held last night, the following resolution was 
unanimously passed, which I was directed to send to you: "The 
Liberals and Radicals of Northampton have heard with the 
deepest regret of the death of the Right Hon. Henry Labouchere, 



540 HENRY LABOUCHERE 

who, for more than a quarter of a century, faithfully represented 
the Borough in the House of Commons. The members of the 
Executive of the Northampton Liberal and Radical Association 
hereby place on record the profound gratitude of all its members 
for the loyal service which Mr. Labouchere rendered to the cause 
of Democracy during so many years. Whoever faltered, he 
stood firm, and it will always be a proud remembrance that 
Northampton also stood firm, and that there was no break in 
the mutual confidence of member and constituents. To his 
daughter, the Marchesa di Rudini, and other members of Mr. 
Labouchere's family, we offer our sincerest sympathy in the 
irreparable loss that they have sustained, and trust they may 
find some consolation in the warm tributes that have been paid 
by men of all parties to his life, character, and work." Having 
known Mr. Labouchere for many years, and being his agent in 
the important election of 1900 (during the Boer War), allow me 
to add my own personal sympathy and condolence with you. 



INDEX 



Abbeville, Labouchere at, 141 

Abbot, Labouchere's action against, 
108, 109 

Abdulal Pasha, exile of, 221 

Abercorn, Duke of, 85 

Aberdeen, Earl of, 262; Col. Turner 
as aide to, 361 

Adelphi Theatre, Green at the, 29 

Affirmation Act, passing of the, 160 

Afghan War, the, 143 

Afrikanders, National League of, 437 

Aix, Provence, Fouche exiled to, 12 

Albert, Prince, 67 

Albret, Jeanne d', founder of the 
Protestant University at Orthez, i 

Alexander II., Emperor of Russia, 
watches Labouchere at dcarte, 57 

Alexandria, bombardment of, 71, 
194, 195, 196, 218 

Aliens Bill, 170 

Alison on Mexico, 33 

Alison, Sir Archibald, his command in 
Egypt, 209 

Alliance Loan, the, 13 

AUsopp, Labouchere on, 239 

America, Bradlaugh in, 161-64; 
Fenianism in, 81, 170, 288, 309- 
10. 385; its constitution an example 
for England and Ireland, 237-8, 
293, 294, 298, 531-33; its diplomats 
in Paris during the siege, 43; its 
interest in Labouchere's Paris 
letters, 96; its labour system com- 
pared with English, 461, 471, 479; 
its surgery and its girls in the 
Franco- Prussian War, 44, 45; its 
system of education, 42; Labou- 
chere's prediction for, 14, 41, 44, 
226; Lord Taunton travels in, 
14-15; unpopularity of Pamell in, 
378 

Amiens, Labouchere at, 140 

Amsterdam, house of Hope at, 2, 10 

Anarchist party, the, 418 



Anglo-American War, 9 

Anne, Queen, Labouchere on, 245 

Antwerp, 7, 10 

Appeals in the House of Lords, La- 
bouchere on, 83 

Appropriation Act, the, 354 

Arabi Pasha, exile of, 203-9, 219-24; 
rebellion of, 70-1, 195-98, 202, 215 

Arago, Mayor of Paris, 127 

Arklow, Parnell at, 258 

Armenian persecutions, the, 435 

Arms Bill, the, 172 

Army, Labouchere on the, 478 

Arrears Bill, the passing of, 176, 179, 
181, 183, 187, 252, 361 

Ascot, Labouchere at, 106 

Ashbourne, his Irish policy, 279 

Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H., counsel for 
Parnell v. Walter, 374 n., 407 

Assouan, 209 

Athlone, Stamforth contests, 525 

Atkinson, American statist, 468 

Atkinson, counsel for the Times, 374 
n. 

Audiffret-Pasquier, Due d', Histoire 
de Mon Temps, 13 w. 

Austen, Charles, correspondent in 
Paris during the siege, 141 n. 

Australia, J. R. Cox in, 223 

Austria, customs union with, 418 

Austrian charge d'affaires, in Stock- 
holm, Labouchere's duel with, 50 

Austro-Prussian War, the, 97 

Avebury, Lord, at Eton, 18 

Aztecs, the, in Mexico, 34 

Bacon, Lord, quoted, 20, 515 
Baden-Baden, Labouchere at, 54, 65, 
Baggallay, Lord Justice, his judg- 
ment against Bradlaugh, 157; on 
Labouchere in Hyde Park, 364 
Baker, his army in Egypt, 199 
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J., administra- 
tion of, 438, 517, 518, 524, 531; 



541 



542 



INDEX 



Balfour — Continued 

Bannerman on, 455; Gladstone's 
letters to, re Home Rule, 289, 298; 
his coercive measures as Irish 
Secretary, 357-60; Labouchere on 
his philosophy, 369 

Ballantine, Serjeant, acts as counsel 
for Labouchere, 76 w-, 77 ! at Evans', 
29; dines with Labouchere and 
Orton, 116 

Balloons, as letter carriers, during 
the siege of Paris, 128-35 

Ballot Act, amendments of the, 272 

Balston, Edward, Labouchere's house 
master at Eton, 1 8 

Bannerman, Sir Henry Campbell, 
his letters to Labouchere, re retire- 
ment, 517, 523; his premiership, 
518, 524, 531; on Chamberlain's 
South African policy, 427, 448, 

449, 454, 455 

Baring, Alexander, partner m the 
house of Hope, 2 

Baring, Rev. Alexander, his story of 
P.-C. Labouchere, 2 

Baring Brothers, restore French 
credit, 12, 13; their crisis in 1890, 
489 

Baring, Dorothy, her marriage to 
P.-C. Labouchere, 2 

Baring, Emily, marriage of, 14 ». 

Baring, Sir Evelyn. See Lord Cromer 

Baring, Hon. Francis Henry, 3 n. 

Baring, Sir Francis, consents to his 
daughter's marriage, 3; his friend- 
ship with Wellesley, 5, 7, 8 

Baring, Lucy, daughter of Charles, 
13 n. 

Baring, Sir Thomas, his daughters' 
marriages, 14 

Baring, M. P., Thomas Charles, 3 n. 

Baring. See Lord Revelstoke 

Barnes, Edwin, Secretary of North- 
ampton Liberal and Radical As- 
sociation, 539 

Barrere, Camille, on the staff of the 
World, 107 

Barrier, Jean Guyon, 2 

Barrow, Cavendish influence at, 350 

Barton fights Labouchere at Eton, 
18 

Bass, Labouchere on, 239 

Bathurst, Lord, as Foreign Secretary, 
6 

Bavaria, an example for Ireland, 533 

Bayonne, i 

Bazaine, Marshal, at Metz, 123, 124 

Beaconsfield, Earl of, advises North- 



cote in the Bradlaugh case, 154; 
arranges an Egyptian loan with 
Rothschilds, 190, 191; attends the 
Berlin Congress, 191, 192; de- 
feated at Taunton, 13, 14; his 
administration, 85, 86, 235, 520; 
his Imperialism, 143 

Bedford, Duke of, Burke's letter to, 
231 

Beefsteak Club, the, Labouchere's 
expulsion from, 117 

Beit, Alfred, his complicity in the 
Jameson Raid, 426, 428, 431 

Belfast, manufacturers of, 276, 319 

Belgium, Egypt compared with, 203, 
206 

Bell, Moberley, manager of the Times, 
436 

Bellew, Kyrle, debut of, iii, 496 

Bellew, Montesquieu, Labouchere 
travels to Palestine with, 111-13, 
496 . . 

Belloc, Hilaire, as a conversationalist, 

73 
Bennett, Robert, editor of Truth, 

518; on Labouchere as a journalist, 

491-516 
Berlin Congress, the, Disraeli and 

Salisbury attend, 191, 192 

Decree of, 9 

Beza, Theodore, professor at Orthez, i 
Bigham, 427. See Lord Mersey 
Bingham, Captain Hon. D., in Paris 

during the siege, 138 n., 141 n. 
Birmingham, Chamberlain, M. P. 

for, 167, 241, 322, 323; death-rate 
. of, 463 

Birmingham Post, 455 
Biron, Mr., counsel for Labouchere, 

76 n. 
Bishop Auckland, Labouchere at, 

118 
Bishops, Labouchere on, 241 
Bismarck, 96 n. ; as Ambassador at 

St. Petersburg, 62; at the Berlin 

Congress, 192; his Memoirs, 70; 

threatens intervention in Egypt, 

194 
Blackwood, Sir Arthur, at Eton, 18 
Blake, his support of Labouchere, 

427 
Blanc, Louis, Labouchere protected 

by, 132 
Blaquieres, M. de, French controller 

in Egypt, 195 
Bloemfontein, capture of, 454 

Conference, the, 455 

Blucher, General, 57 



INDEX 



543 



Blunt, Wilfrid Scawen, Gordon and 
Khartoum, quoted, 214; his remi- 
niscences of Labouchere, 69-73; 
his support of Arabi Pasha, 204, 
222; Labouchere's letters to, re 
Arabi in exile, 220, 224; Labou- 
chere's letters to, re the Soudan 
War, 216-19; 00 the death of 
Gordon, 212; on Disraeli and Salis- 
bury, 174; on the English policy 
in Egypt, 193, 204, 214-15; on 
Labouchere as a politician, 198, 
214; Secret History of the English 
Occupation of Egypt, quoted, 190 «., 
192 n. 

Boadicea, 244 

Boer War, the history of the, 436- 
57; Labouchere's protests against, 
436, 438-39, 540 

Boers, the, their resentment against 
England, 437. See also under 
Transvaal 

Bologna, 61 

Bonn, 32 

Bonner, Mrs, Bradlaugh, Life of Mr. 
Bradlaugh, 142 n. 

Booth, Charles, statist, 460 

Booth, Sclater, Labouchere on, 239 

Boston, Labouchere mistaken for an 
Irish patriot, in, 47, 48 

Boulogne, Labouchere at, 500 

Bourbon, the House of, 8 

Bowen, Lord Justice, 501 

Bower, Sir Graham, censure of, 428 

Bowles, Thomas Gibson, correspond- 
ent in Paris during the siege, 141 n. 

Boycott, Captain, English agent of 
Lord Mayo, 165 

Boycotting, practice of, 165, 176, 185 

Boyd, Charles, his interview with 
Labouchere, 435, 436 

Bradford, election of 1886 at, 326 

Forster, M. P. for, 176 

Bradlaugh, Charles, Gladstone's 
tribute to, 160-61; his imprison- 
ment, 154; his struggle for the 
right to affirm, 145-64; Labou- 
chere's defence of, 148, 151, 156- 
64; returned for Northampton, 
142-45, 158 

Brampton, Henry, Lord, his letter 
to Labouchere, re retirement, 526 

Bramwell, Lord Justice, his decision 
against Bradlaugh, 157 

Brand, M. P. for Stroud, 334 

Brand, Sir Henry, 238; his rulings in 
the Bradlaugh struggle, 146, 151-2, 
160 



Brassey, Lord, Labouchere on, 239 
Brennan, his imprisonment, 172, 

174 

Brentford, election scenes at, in 
1868, 86, 90-2 

Breslin, John, American Fenian, 385, 
396 

Breteuil, Labouchere at, 140 

Brett, 280, 289 

Bridges, Sir Henry, his ditty, 117. 
See Appendix 

Brielle, 6 

Bright, John, his defence of Brad- 
laugh, 146, 149-51; Labouchere's 
admiration of, 171, 228; opposes 
coercive measures in Ireland, 166, 
181, 187; opposes the Egyptian 
policy, 220 

Brighton, Labouchere at, 269, 273; 
Voules at, 507 

Bristol, Lord, Labouchere's fag at 
Eton, 19 «. 

British South Africa Company, its 
complicity in the Jameson Raid, 
426-37, 438, 452, 454; its evacua- 
tion of Uganda, 420 

British virtue, Labouchere's indict- 
ments of, 105 

Broadley, A. M., How We Defended 
Arabi and His Friends, quoted by 
Arabi, 222 

Broome Hall, Surrey, John Peter 
Labouchere at, 16, 31, 73 

Broue, Catherine de la, 2 

Brough, Lionel, at New Queen's 
Theatre, 99; bluflfs Labouchere, 94 

Brousson, L., on the staff of Truth, 

505, 509 
Brownrigg, Inspector, Labouchere 

on his conduct at Michelstown, 

368-71 
Bruce, Campbell, counsel, 76 n. 
Brunner, Mr., at Michelstown, 365, 

367 

Brunswick, House of, Bradlaugh's 
impeachment of, 148 

Bryce, James, on the Coercion Bill, 
182 

Buckenbrock, Labouchere's friend- 
ship with, 52 

Budget Bill of 1885, the, 251 

Buenos Ayres, Labouchere's appoint- 
ment in, 65 

Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, 
Indians in, 40 

Buffon quoted, J33 

Bulgaria, Turks in, 200 

Buller, his policy in Ireland, 361 



544 



INDEX 



BuUer, Sir Henry, as Ambassador at 
Constantinople, 54, 63, 64. See 
Lord Bailing 

BuUer, Sir Redvers, in Pretoria, 440 

Bunsen, Labouchere on, 308 

Buonaparte, Jerome, 9 

Buonaparte, Joseph, in Spain, 8, 9 

Buonaparte, Louis, as king of Hol- 
land, 5-9 

Bureaucracy, Labouchere on, 122 

Burke, Under-Secretary for Ireland, 
murder of, 174, 175, 359, 372 

Burke, Edmund, his letter to the 
Duke of Bedford, 231 

Burmah as a political pawn, 310-12 

Burnaby, Captain Fred, his reminis- 
cence of Labouchere, 242 

Busch, Our Chancellor, 53 n. 

Butler, General Sir William, his 
command in South Africa, 437 

Buxton, Sidney, 427 

Byrne, Frank, 386 

Byron, H. J., Dearer than Life, 99 



Cadenabbia, Labouchere at, 418-21, 

423, 515, 535 

Caine, M.P., Labouchere on, 350 

Cairnes, quoted by Hyndman, 481, 
482 

Cairo, Arabi at, 70, 204; General 
Gordon in, 212; Lord Wolseley in, 
208; Prefect of Police at, 216 

Calais, Labouchere at, 127 

Calcraft, hangman, 115 

Caldwell's dancing rooms, 105 

Callan, M.P., Mr., on Bright and 
Bradlaugh, 150 

Cambridge, St. Peter's College, 23; 
Trinity College, Labouchere at, 
22-7, 251, 491, 522 

Cambridge, Duchess of, her friend- 
ship with Labouchere, 54 

Campbell, secretary to Parnell, 375, 
396 

Campbell, Sir George, 208 

Canada, Dominion of, Labouchere on, 

301. 304 

Canning, George, his duel with 
Castlereagh, 6 

Canrobert, Marshal, his corps, 123 n. 

Cape Colony, Lord Milner as Gover- 
nor of, 437; Rhodes as Premier of, 
427, 430; war spirit in, 437 

Capital V. Labour, discussed by 
Hyndman and Labouchere at 
Northampton, 458-90 

Cardwell, Mr., 136 



Carey, James, informer, forged letters 
to, 372, 374, 375» 384 

Carlisle, Earl of, 14 

Carnarvon, Lord, as Viceroy of Ire- 
land, 251-56, 279, 282, 286 

Carrington, Lord, assaults Granville 
Murraj^ no ». 

Caspian Sea, the, 135 

Cassell, Petter, and Galpin, firm of, 

493 

Castlereagh, his duel with Canning, 
6 

Catholic Emancipation, question of, 
6 

Cattle-maiming in Ireland, 165, 169 

Cavendish family, the, their influence 
at Barrow, 350 

Cavendish, Lord E., Chamberlain on, 
271 

Cavendish, Lord Frederick, 146; 
murder of, 174, 175, 188, 358, 359, 
372 

Cavour, Gladstone on, 419; Labou- 
chere's reminiscences of, 62 

Ceylon, Arabi's exile in, 204-9,220-24 

Chalons, French camp at, 122-23 w- 

Chamberlain, Joseph, as President 
of the Local Government Board, 
3 1 7 «. ; Churchill on, 209 ; Healy on, 
303, 363; his alleged complicity 
in the Jameson Raid, 427, 431, 
446, 452; his correspondence with 
Labouchere re the Boer War, 446- 
54; his correspondence with La- 
bouchere on Home Rule, 261-356; 
his Egyptian policy, 70, 211, 212; 
his Irish policy prior to the Home 
Rule Bill, 256-303; his probable 
Premiership, 226, 227, 249, 280, 
319, 320, 349; his responsibility, 
as Colonial Secretary, for the Boer 
War, 437-38, 442-57; his scheme 
of Home Rule, 255, 326; his seces- 
sion from the Liberal party over 
Home Rule, 226-28, 318-355; 
Labouchere's admiration of, 259; 
Labouchere's letters to, re Brad- 
laugh, 159; Labouchere's letters 
to, re the Egyptian policy, 205-6, 
210, 211; Labouchere's letters to, 
re the Irish Coercion Bill, 177- 
187; Labouchere's letters to, re Ra- 
dicalism, 41-2, 226-27; Labou- 
chere's opposition to, 519, 531; 
on Gladstone's Irish policy, 167, 
189, 226, 263, 266, 271, 306; 
on Herbert Gladstone, 265; on 
the House of Lords, 241; on the 



INDEX 



545 



Chamberlain — Continued 

Land Question, 276, 292; on the 
Parnell Commission, 383; on Salis- 
bury's Irish policy, 251; opposes 
the use of coercion in Ireland, 165, 

173. 189 

Chaplin, M.P., Henry, 146, 150; on 
the Coercion Bill, 187 

Chartered Company. See British 
South Africa. 

Chatham, Earl of, his death, 6 

Chaumes, Prussian army at, 127 

Chelmsford, Morley at, 322 

Chesterfield, Philip, Earl of, his 
Letters to His Son, 29; quoted, 88 

Chevreau, M., 126 

Chiala, Signor, on the relations be- 
tween England and Italy, 410 

Chicago, Healy in, 310 

Childers, M.P., his Irish sympathies, 
150, 260, 347 

China, industrialism of, 468, 479, 487 

Chinese Labour question, the, La- 
bouchere on, 531 

Chippeway Indians, Labouchere's 
life among the, 40-41 

Christina of Sweden, Queen, Labou- 
chere on, 245 

Church of England, Disestablish- 
ment of the. See Disestablishment. 

Church Patronage Bill, the, Labou- 
chere on, 243 

Rates Abolition Act, 8 1 

Churchill, Lord Randolph, at Brigh- 
ton, 269; at Twickenham, 356; 
Chamberlain on, 253, 264, 271, 
285-86, 288, 313; Hartington's 
quarrel with, 278, 282; Healy on, 
274, 283, 285, 303, 313, 362, 363; 
his comment on Labouchere's 
Michelstown speech, 368, 397; his 
friendship with Labouchere, 250; 
his illness, 262 ; his letters to Labou- 
chere re Home Rule, 285, 289, 
298 ff., 307; his letter to Salisbury 
re Home Rule, 279; in Ireland, 282; 
in opposition, 409; Labouchere on, 
3I5> 3i9> 344; negotiates with the 
Irish party, 254-303, 315; on 
Chamberlain, 298, 308; on the 
Conservative party, 248; refers to 
Labouchere as "the religious mem- 
ber," 142 

Churchill, Winston Spencer, Lord 
Randolph Churchill, quoted, 280 w. 

Civil List, the, Labouchere's attacks 
on, 233, 234, 239-40, 246, 409, 413, 
465-66, 478 



Clan-na-Gael, the, takes possession 

of Parnell letters, 386 
Clarendon, Earl of, 67; Viceroy of 

Ireland, 251 
Clarke v. Bradlaugh, action of, 157 
Clayton, John, at New Queen's 

Theatre, 99 
Cleave, Mr., 76 
Clongowes, school at, 404 
Clonmel, Mayor of, at Michelstown, 

366 
Coalition Ministry, the, 6; of 1885- 

86 proposed, 268, 270, 295, 304 
Cobden, Richard, on landlordism, 

235 
Cockermouth, Lawson M.P. for, 524 
Coercion Bills, passing of the, 171- 

179, 238, 251, 256, 263, 313, 357-61, 

363 

Colenso, 440 

Collectivism v. Individualism dis- 
cussed by Labouchere and Hynd- 
man, 463, 464, 479 
Collings, Jes, 333; his amendment, 

315, 316 
Communism, Hyndman on, 485 
Cond6, Prince de, his army, 7 
Condorcet, his gambling system, 66 
Connaught, Duke of, his allowance, 

233 

Conservative party, the, Labouchere 
on, 247-48, 458; their advances to 
the Irish, 251, 308 

Constantinople, Labouchere as secre- 
tary of Embassy at, 54, 62-5 ; Lord 
Stratford Ambassador at, 62, 63 

Constitutional monarchy, Labou- 
chere on, 230, 233, 242, 246 

Cooke, Q.C., W. H., 76 n. 

Coombe, Gladstone at, 214 

Cooper, Labouchere's tutor at Cam- 
bridge, 22 

Co-operation, principle of, 472 

Cork, Mayor of, at Michelstown, 366, 
367; Parnell M.P. for, 174, 378 

Cortes in Mexico, 34 

Corti, Count, on the Berlin Congress, 
192 n. 

County Councils, establishment of, 
302 

Covent Garden, Labouchere's life in, 
28-30, 70 

Covington, Frederick, 418 n. 

Cowper, Lord, Viceroy of Ireland, 
his resignation, 174; urges coercion, 
165, 166, 173, 175 

Cox, M.P., J. R., his visit to Arabi, 
223 



546 



INDEX 



Crampton, Mr., British Minister at 
Washington, 46, 47 

Crawford, George Morland, leaves 
Paris before the siege, 1 19-120 

Crawford, Mrs., on Labouchere as a 
diplomatist, 66, 67-8; on Labou- 
chere in Paris before the siege, 119- 
120 

Cremorne, Labouchere at, 105, 129 

Crimean War, instigated by Lord 
Stratford, 63 ; recruiting in America 
for, 45 

Crimes Bill. See Prevention of. 

Crimping, practice of, in America, 

45 

Cripps, Sir Alfred, on the Select Com- 
mittee on British South Africa, 427 

Cromer, Lord, as English Controller 
in Egypt, 195, 212; in India, 210; 
on General Gordon, 212 

Cross, Sir R. Assheton, 150; Labou- 
chere on, 239 

Crown and Country, financial rela- 
tions between, 42, 230, 232, 242, 
246, 413 

Cuernava, Labouchere at, 36 

Cumming, Dr., impersonation of, 82 

Cunynghame, Sir Henry, member of 
the Parnell Commission, 373-74, 

395 

Cyprus, England's lease of, 191, 192, 
197, 222 

Daily Chronicle, Spender of, 448 

Daily News, aflfected by Birmingham 
imperialism, 96 n.; Churchill on, 
279, 286; Labouchere as a corre- 
spondent of, 43-44, 96, 114, 1 19-41 ; 
Labouchere's financial connection 
with, 95, 96, 492; on Home Rule, 
257, 274, 279, 299, 326; on the Par- 
nell Commission, 383-84, 393; on 
the Triple Alliance, 41 1 

Daily Telegraph, its action against 
Labouchere, 500; Lawley, cor- 
respondent in Paris, 141 ».; on 
Home Rule, 256 

Dalglish, Robert, 76 n. 

Dallas, correspondent in Paris during 
the siege, 141 n. 

Dalling, Henry Bulwer, Lord, as 
Ambassador at Constantinople, 
54, 63, 64 

Damascus, Labouchere at, 72 

Darmstadt, Court of, plays at whist, 

55 
Darvill, Mr., town-clerk of Windsor, 

75 



Darwin, Charles, Gladstone on, 267 

Daunt, O'Neill, 302 

Davitt, Michael, Healy on, 254; his 
scheme for the nationalisation of 
land, 179, 182-83; his letter to 
Labouchere re Home Rule, 257-58; 
Pigott forgeries of, 395, 396; speaks 
against the Coercion Bill, 363 

Davy on the Coercion Bill, 182, 185 

Day, Sir Charles, member of the 
Parnell Commission, 373, 393 

Deacon, banker, 16 

Dead Sea, Labouchere at the, 112 

Dearer than Life, produced at New 
Queen's Theatre, 99 

De Beers Consolidated Mines, the, 
427 

Defence of Philosophic Doubt, Bal- 
four's, 369 

Delaney, his evidence in the Parnell 
Commission, 384 

Democracy, English government by 
the, Labouchere on, 238-39, 248, 
413, 418, 481, 540 

Derby, Lord, anecdotal photograph 
of, 68; Grenville Murray's attacks 
on, 109; his ministry, 85; retires 
on the Egyptian loan, 190, 191, 
193; signs the Convention of 1884, 
451; travels in America, 14 

De Sartines, chief of police, wit of, 4 

Devonshire, seventh Duke of, his 
death, 363 

Devonshire, eighth Duke of, on the 
House of Lords, 363. See Lord 
Hartington. 

Devonshire House, anti-Home Rule 
meeting at, 344 n. 

Devoy, American Fenian, 170 

Dbakool, capture of, 219, 220 

Dickens, Charles, David Copperfield, 
535; Household Words, 32, 68 

Dictionary of National Biography, 
46 «. 

Diet of Frankfort, the, Bismarck 
Prussian representative at, 52, 54, 

55 

Digby, Sir Kenelm, 28 

Dilke, Sir Charles, 436; as a member 
of Gladstone's Government, 196, 
200, 204, 228, 233; his acquaintance 
with foreign affairs, 71; his Egyp- 
tian policy, 71, 196, 200, 204; his 
return to Parliament, 418; Labou- 
chere's letters to, re the abolition 
of the House of Lords, 532-34; 
Labouchere's letters to, re the 
Egyptian policy, 198-200; letters 



INDEX 



547 



Dilke — Continued 

to and from Labouchere re Home 
Rule, 325, 327-28; secures Labou- 
chere 's seat in the House, 527 

Dillon, Charles, at Michelstown, 
365-67; Healy on, 276, 362; im- 
prisonment of , 1 72 , 1 74 ; his speeches 
re South Africa, 438 

Diplomacy, Bismarck on German, 
52; Labouchere on English and 
American, 44, 53, 411, 452 

Disestablishment of the Church of 
England advocated by Labou- 
chere, 43, 226, 234, 243, 244, 248, 

417 

Disraeli, Benjamin. See Beacons- 
field. 

Dongola, 434 

Donkey as a diet, 139 

Donleath, Stuart, case of, 187 

Dorking, Mrs. Labouchere at Oak- 
dene, near, 130 »., 138 n. 

Douay, Abel, death of, 123 

Douglas, Akers, 352 

Dramatic, artists, Labouchere on, 
101-102 

critic, Labouchere as a, 496, 503 

Dresden, Labouchere as attache at, 

59 
Drink bill, national, 466 
Dublin, headquarters of the Land 
League, 181, 183; Healy in, 239, 
271, 273, 283, 289, 303; Liberal 
Unionists of, their responsibility 
for the Pigott children, 404; Par- 
liament in, 422; Parnell at, 256; 
Phoenix Park, 174, 175; proposed 
Irish Parliament in, 252, 306, 321, 
327, 339; Redmond in, 524; trial 
of the Land League in, 166 
Dublin Daily Express, 279, 309 
Duclos, Maltre, notary to Trochu, 

136 
Ducrot, General, in Paris, 136 
Dudley, Lord, marriage of, 525 
Duelling, Labouchere's experience of, 

50 

Dufferin, Lord, his Egyptian policy, 
207, 208, 223 

Dumas, Alexandre, phe, Labou- 
chere meets, at Genoa, 113, 114 

Dumas, Mile. Maria, Labouchere at 
the wedding of, 114 

Dunn, Parliamentary agent at Wind- 
sor, 75 

Du Pre, Caroline, her marriage, 14 
n. 

Du Pre, James, banker, 16 



Du Pre, Rev. William Maxwell, his 

marriage, 14 «. 
Durand's, Paris, 120 
Durham, Bishop of, 3 n. 
Durrant, Mr., solicitor to Sir Henry 

Hoare, 76, 78-81 
Dyke, Sir W. Hart, 427 
Dynamite Concession, the, 449 



Echo, Voules as manager of, 493 

Economy, Labouchere's political, 409, 
410 

Eden, Frederick Morton, his reminis- 
cence of Labouchere at Eton, 19 

Edict of Nantes, revocation of the, 2 

Edinburgh, Chamberlain at, 323; 
represented by Goschen, 264, 297 

Education, English national, Car- 
narvon on, 282; Chamberlain on, 
270; Conservative support of de- 
nominational, 258 ; Labouchere on, 
42-43, 84, 234, 235, 248; Mundella 
as Minister of, 286 

Edward VII., accession of, 148; as 
Prince of Wales, defends Grenville 
Murray, 67 

Edwards, Passmore, acquires the 
Echo, 493 

Egan, Patrick, his forged corre- 
spondence with Parnell, 358, 372- 
405; treasurer of the Land League 
in Paris, 172, 181, 182, 1S6, 358, 
372 

Egypt, as a political pawn, 310-13; 
English occupation of, 70-71, 72, 
190-224, 248, 259, 434; French 
interest in, 191, 192, 197, 203, 210; 
its occupation of the Soudan, 209; 
its Soudanese frontier established, 
215, 216; national movement under 
the Arabi in, 195-98, 205; rule of 
Khedives in, 190-97, 205, 207-8 

Elandslaagte, battle of, 440 

Electoral districts, Labouchere on, 
229 

Elephant as a diet, 138 

Elgin, Lord, Governor of Canada, at 
Washington, 45 

Elizabeth, Queen, Labouchere on, 

245 
Ellenborough, Lady, in Palestine, 72 
Ellis, John, 427, 455 
Ellis, T. E., at Michelstown, 365, 367 
El Obeid, the Mahdi at, 209, 210 
Enfield, Lord, his quarrel with La- 
bouchere during the Middlesex 
election, 85-93 



548 



INDEX 



England, house of Hope transferred 
to, 4; its relations with America, 
81; its relations with Turkey, 196- 

7, 199 
English, abroad, Labouchere on, 95 
diplomatists in Paris during the 

siege, 43-44 
institutions contrasted with the 

American, 41 
system of education contrasted 

with the American, 42-43 
Ephesus, Council of, 150 
Escott, T. H. S., contribution to the 

World, 107 
Established Church of England, See 

Disestablishment 
Eton, education at, 42; Labouchere 

at, 18-21, 251, 491, 522 
Eugenie, Empress, in Paris, 124, 126, 

134; her letter derided, 134 
Evans', Convent Garden, habitues of 

28, 29; Labouchere in residence 

at, 28-31, 70 
Eversley, Lord, Gladstone and Ire- 
land, quoted, 358 n.; on the Land 

League, 172 
Evidence Amendment Act, the, 145 
Expenses of Voters, Labouchere on, 

83 

Pagan, Captain, received by Welles- 
ley, 7, 12 

Fagging, Labouchere's views on, 20 

Fairfield, Mr., 431 

Fakenham, Rev. John Labouchere 
of, 21 n. 

Farnham Castle, 2 n. 

Fatherland, production of, 103 

Favre, Jules, member of the Pro- 
visional Government, 127, 128 

Fawcett, Professor, 136 

Fenianism in America, 81, 170, 288, 
310-11; in Ireland, 171, 183, 186, 
275, 276; Labouchere on, 276, 278, 
282, 292, 316 

Fen wick, Mr., directs the case against 
Labouchere for cribbing, 24-25 

Ferdinand VII. of Spain, Napoleon's 
treatment of, 8, 10 

Ferguson, Sir James, 410, 412 

Fermoy, Labouchere at, 365 

Ferry, Jules, member of the Pro- 
visional Government, 127 

Feudalism, Labouchere on, 241. See 
also Land System 

Finance, economical, Labouchere's 
efforts on behalf of, 246, 494-95, 
505 



Financial Reform Almanack, the, 
quoted, 232 

Fitzgibbon, Churchill visits, 282, 
289 

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond, his letter 
to Labouchere re retirement, 525-26 

Fletcher Moulton, Privy Councillor, 

^531 

Florence, flight of the Grand Duke 
from, 61 ; Labouchere in, 60-62, 72, 
95» 513. 517-23, 530-39; Unione 
Club, 61 ; Florence Herald, quoted, 
62 n. 

Flower, Mr., retires from the candi- 
dature of Windsor, 75-80 

Foljambe, Chamberlain on, 271 

Fond du Lac, Labouchere at, 41 

Forbes, Archibald, on the staff of the 
World, 107; war correspondent to 
the Daily News, 96, 127 

Foreign Office, Archives, examples of 
telegrams in, 53, 54 

messengers, their expense, 

54 

Forster, M.P., R. N., seconds Sir 
H. D. Wolff, 148 

Forster, W. E., Chief Secretary for 
Ireland, allusions to, in Parnell's 
supposed letters, 372; blackmailed 
by Pigott, 393; Healy on, 303; 
his arrest of Parnell, 172, 254; his 
resignation, 174, 188, 267, 276; 
Labouchere on, 282, 297; urges 
coercive measures in Ireland, 165- 
73, 176, 182 

Fortnightly Review, Chamberlain on 
Home Rule, in the, 255; "Radicals 
and Whigs" quoted, 41, 42, 228-29 

Fottrell, 302 

Foucault threatens the Protestants 
of Orthez, i 

Fouche negotiates his own downfall, 
5-12 

Fowler, Sir Henry, his speech inspired 
by Labouchere, 350 

France, financial situation of, in 
1817, 12, 13; Guizot on, 480; in- 
auguration of the Third Republic, 
126, 127, 191; its interests in 
Egypt, 190, 192, 197, 203, 210 

Franchise, Act of, 1884, the, 256 

extension of the, Labouchere on, 

229, 244-46, 248. Ste also Suffrage 

Law for the Transvaal, 442, 

448-49 

Franclrfort, Bismarck in, 52, 53; 
Labouchere as attache in, 52, 54, 
60,69, 119 



INDEX 



549 



Franco-Prussian War, ii6, 191; La- 
bouchere's correspondence during, 
43-44,96, 1 19-41 

Freehold Land Society, its work in 
Northampton, 143 

Freeman's Journal, the correspond- 
ence between Egan and Pigott in, 

^375 

Free Trade for Ireland, Davitt on, 

256-57 
French, journalism during the siege 

of Paris, Labouchere on, 133-36 

wars, allusions to, 287, 296 

Froisard, General, defeat of his Army 

Corps, 124 

Galveston, Healy in, 310 
Gambetta, member of the Republican 

Government, 127 
Gambling, Labouchere's system in, 

65-66 
Garter, Order of the, 241 
Gaulois, its address to the Prussians, 

134 
Gave, the river, i 
Gedge, Mr., tries to do Labouchere 

out of his seat in the House, 527 
Genealogist, The, the Labouchere 

pedigree, 14 «. 
Genoa, Labouchere and Dumas at, 

George III., 296; at Kew, 409 
George V., his installation as K.G., 246 
George, Mr., his scheme for the 

nationalisation of land, 235 
German, Empire, its proposed inter- 
vention in Egypt, 194; position 
of Bavaria in, 488; Socialism in, 
487 

people, Labouchere's dislike of, 

51, 52 

ZoUverein, principle of the, 294 

Gibbon, Edward, 88,151 
Gibraltar, English tenure of, 199 
Gibson, M.P., Mr., 150 
Giffen, Mr., quoted, 470, 485 
Girondists, the, compared with the 

Irish Nationalists, 293 
Gladstone, Mrs., 282 
Gladstone, Herbert, Lord, Chamber- 
lain on, 265 ; negotiates between his 
father and Labouchere, 214-17, 
261-303, 312-55 
Gladstone, William Ewart, 407; his 
Egyptian policy, 71, 189, 190, 
194-219; his first administration, 
85, 86, 136 n.; his position in the 
Bradlaugh case, 148, 151-55, 158, 



160; his tribute to Bradlaugh, 160- 
61; Labouchere dubs him "Grand 
Old Man," 158; opposes coercive 
measures in Ireland, 165, 166, 173- 
75, 225, 236, 238; Labouchere's 
admiration of, 171, 176; adopts 
coercive measures in Ireland, 175- 
189; his second administration, 
194, 297; rebukes Labouchere, 
219; Chamberlain regarded as the 
successor of, 225, 227, 249, 281, 
318, 321, 348; his resignation in 
1885, 251; his Irish policy prior 
to the Home Rule Bill, 252-320, 
361; in Norway, 257; Labouchere 
on his motives in the Irish ques- 
tion, 262, 281, 288, 298, 304, 
308, 313, 318, 326, 329, 419; his 
capacity for mystification, 265, 
278, 283, 335, 347, 350; his third 
administration, 269 n., 283, 315, 
317 »•-. 357; submits Home Rule 
scheme to the Queen, 270, 287 
n., 288; Healy on, 272, 274, 283- 
86, 290, 303, 314, 315, 361-63; 
Parnell on, 278; his desire for 
office, 281-82, 288; his letters to 
Balfour re Home Rule, 289, 298; 
Chamberlain on, 298-300, 326, 334- 
35. 340. 342, 346; his popularity, 
305* 351; Chamberlain secedes 
from, 318-355 ; introduces the Land 
Bill, 321; his first Home Rule Bill, 
319-357. 413. 416, 419, 420; his 
letters to Labouchere re the Triple 
Alliance, 411 ; his fourth adminis- 
tration, 412, 420, 423; his letters 
to Labouchere re his exclusion from 
his Cabinet, 412-18; his second 
Home Rule Bill, 421, 422, 528; 
his final view of the House of Lords, 
422-23; his retirement, 96 n., 274, 

^315,354 

Glasgow, Chamberlain at, 323 

Home Government Association 

of, 156 

Globe, its interview with Labouchere 
on the fall of Rosebery's Ministry, 
424; publishes the Cyprus Con- 
vention, 192 

Godin, Stephen Peter, 14 n. 

Gold fields of South Africa, 427 

Goldney, M.P., Sir Gabriel, 146, 150 

Gonesse, 140 

Goodenough, Sir William, death of, 
437 

Gordon, Colonel Bill, his conversa- 
tion on Egypt, 72 



550 



INDEX 



Gordon, General, 72; Arabi on, 222; 
as Governor-General of the Sou- 
dan, 209; his death at Khartoum, 
212-15 

Gordon, Sir Arthur, 222 

Gorst, Sir John, Healy on, 284; op- 
poses Gladstone's motion in favour 
of Bradlaugh, 155 

Gortschakoff, Prince, at the Berlin 
Congress, 192 

Goschen, Viscount, negotiates with 
Hartington, 281, 282, 297, 348; 
on the Coercion Bill, 185; returned 
for Edinburgh, 265; unpopularity 
of, 262 

Goschen-Joubert arrangement with 
Egypt, the, 191, 206 

Gosling, Sir Audley, his reminiscences 
of Labouchere, 39, 65, 65 n. 

Got, of the Commie Frangaise, 120 

Graduated Income Tax, the, Labou- 
chere on, 246, 247 

Graham, General, his command in 
the Soudanese War, 213, 219 

Graham, W., counsel for the Times, 

374 »• 

Grant, Parliamentary agent at Wind- 
sor, 75 

Grantham, M.P., Mr., 146, 150 

Granville, Lord, 121; consulted by 
Gladstone re Arabi, 204; denies 
responsibility for the defeat of 
Hicks Pasha, 209 

Grattan, his Parliament, 254, 258, 306 

Gravelotte, battle of, 124 

Greeks, Labouchere on the, 191, 496 

Green, Paddy, waiterat Evans', 29, 70 

Greene, Conynghame, British agent 
at Pretoria, 442-43, 444 

Gregory, Sir William, his interest in 
Arabi, 221 

Grenville, Lord, ministry of, 6-7 

Grey, Albert, his amendment of the 
Church Patronage Bill, 243 

Grey, Lord, director of the British 
South Africa Company, 428 ; min- 
istry of, 6-7 

Griffiths, his valuations in the Land 
Court, 181 

Grosvenor, Captain, M.P., for West- 
minster, 80 

Grosvenor, Lord Richard, Govern- 
ment Whip, 146; Healy on, 314; 
Labouchere on, 305, 315, 316; on 
the Coercion Bill, 179, 180 

Guinness, Lord, Labouchere on, 
239-40 

Guizot, M., on France, 292, 480 



Haag, Pr^res, La France Protestante, 
I 

Habeas Corpus Act, question of its 
suspension in Ireland, 165-70 

Hague, The, birth of P.-C. Labou- 
chere at, 2 

Halliday, dramatic author, 99 

Hame, General, surrenders Laon, 127 

Hamilton, Lord George, his election 
for Middlesex in 1868, 85-92 

Hammond, Anthony, 19 w. 

Hanbury, M.P., Robert, death of, 83 

Hannen, Sir James, President of the 
Parnell Commission, 373 

Hanover, Crampton, envoy at, 45; 
Napoleon's plans for, 9 

Hansard, speeches of Labouchere in, 
197 

Harcourt, Sir William, 407; at his 
best in Opposition, 409, 424; Healy 
on, 260, 274, 289; his Coercion Bill, 
170. 175. 180, 181, 184, 188; Labou- 
chere on, 287, 313, 323, 334, 344; 
moves a new Address, 425 «.; on 
the Michelstown meeting, 365; 
sits on the Committee on British 
South Africa, 427 

Hardie, Keir, Lalaouchere on, 533 

Harold, Canon, 404 

Harper's Magazine, biographical 
sketch of Labouchere in, 38 

Harrington, 312; Healy on, 276 

Harris, Rutherford, director of the 
South Africa Company, 426 

Harrison, Morley on his Irish scheme, 

309 

Harrow, education at, 42 

Hart Davies, Thomas, visits Labou- 
chere in Florence, 535-37 

Hartington, Lord, as Secretary for 
War questioned on the Egyptian 
policy, 213, 214, 219, 220; Cham- 
berlain on, 264, 270, 271, 286, 329; 
Churchill on, 269, 281; Goschen 
negotiates with, 348; Healy on, 
260, 283, 363; his Irish policy prior 
to the Home Rule Bill, 257-98; 
his meeting re Home Rule, 344 ».; 
his quarrel with Churchill, 278, 
282; Labouchere on his position 
in the Home Rule split, 268, 278, 
282, 287, 297, 304, 315, 318, 324, 
329, 344, 351; Parnell forgeries 
shown to, 375, 406; secedes from 
the Liberal party, 228, 249 

Hastings, Labouchere at, 338, 339 

Hatfield, Lord R. Churchill at, 286, 
287 



IKDEX 



551 



Hatton, Joseph, his biographical 

sketch of Labouchere, 38, 40, 103 
Haussman, M., 126 
Havana, 31 
Ha warden Castle, Gladstone at, 301, 

415 

Manifesto, issue of the, 257 

Hawkesley, Mr., solicitor, his corre- 
spondence with Chamberlain, 429 

n., 452-53 

Hawtrey, Dr., headmaster of Eton, 
18; Labouchere on, 20-21 

Healy, Timothy Michael, agitates for 
Home Rule, 254-303; Davitt on, 
258; his amendments of the Co- 
ercion Bill, 177, 179, 181, 185, 186; 
his attack on Chamberlain's arti- 
cle, 255 n. ; his letters to Labouchere 
re coercive measures in Ireland, 
361-64; his letters to Labouchere 
re Home Rule, 252, 256, 259-60, 
271-72, 273-74, 283-85, 289-90, 
301-3, 309-15; on Parnell, 253-54, 
266, 280 

Heath, Labour candidate for Notting- 
ham, 93 

Heim, Van Der, Dutch statesman, 6 

Heine, Heinrich, 538 

Herbert, Dr. Alan, in Paris during 
the siege, 120 

Herbert, Edward, at Constantinople, 

63 

Herschell, Parrer, his mediation views 
on the Home Rule question, 338, 
340-43, 347; Solicitor-General, 146, 
150, 186 

Hesse family, the, 54 

Hibbert, John Tomlinson, 76 n. 

Hicks Beach, Sir Michael, as Chief 
Secretary for Ireland, 357; Ban- 
nerman on, 455 ; Churchill's scheme 
for, 270; his Amendment of the 
Budget Bill, 251; on the Select 
Committee on British South Africa, 
427 

Hicks Pasha, defeat and death of, 
210-11, 213, 214 

Hill, Dr. Birkbeck, contributes to the 
World, 107 

Hill, Prank, editor of the Daily 
News, 96, 286 

Hill, M.P., Staveley, 146, 150 

Hillyer, Mrs., sister of Henry Labou- 
chere, 17 «. 

Hoare, Sir Henry, contests Windsor 
and is unseated, 75-82 

Hodson, Henrietta, appears at the 
New Queen's Theatre, 99; Labou- 



chere's letters from Paris to, 129. 
See Mrs. Labouchere. 

Holborn Casino, the, 105 

Holker, M.P., Sir John, 146, 150 

Holland, invasion of , 4; Louis Buon- 
aparte as king of, 4-9 

Homburg, Labouchere at, 54, 65, 69, 
72, 95, 119, 242, 419, 525 

Home Rule Bill, introduction of, 527; 
Labouchere on, 167, 189, 225, 236- 
39, 508, 521. See also Ireland. 

Home Rule Split, the, its effect on 
Labouchere, 227 

Hope, M.P., Beresford, 146, 150 

Hope, house of, its dealings with 
America, 15; John Peter Labou- 
chere as a partner in, 16; P.-C. 
Labouchere as a partner in, 2-5 

Hope, John, takes P.-C. Labouchere 
into partnership, 2 

Hopwood, M.P., Mr., member of 
Select Committee on Bradlaugh 
case, 146, 150 

House of Lords, abolition of the,' 
advocated by Labouchere, 226, 
230-33- 238-42 

Household Suffrage Act, the, its 
effect in Northampton, 143 

Houston, E. C, his purchase of 
letters from Pigott, 375, 380, 385, 
386, 389, 396, 405 

Howard, Lady Mary, her marriage, 

14 

Hudson, Sir James, English Minister 
at Turin, 61 

Hugessen, Mr. KnatchbuU-, Labou- 
chere on, 239 

Hungarians, English enthusiasm for, 
284 

Hunter, Mr., in Hyde Park, 363 

Hyde Park, demonstration against 
the Coercion Bill in, 363; Labou- 
chere on, 84 

Hylands, P.-C. Labouchere settles at, 

13 

Hyndman, Mr., defends Socialism 
against Labouchere at North- 
ampton, 459-90 



Iddesleigh, Lord. See Northcote, 

Sir Stafford. 
lUingworth, Radical M.P., 345 
Illinois, educational system of, 42 
Imperial Parliament, Labouchere on 

an, 293, 299-301, 304, 336, 422 
South African Association, the, 

436 



552 



INDEX 



Income Tax, the, Labouchere on, 
207, 246, 249, 466 

Independence Beige, 429 n. 

India, English rule in, 135; Labou- 
chere on, 197, 201, 204 

Individualism v. Collectivism, dis- 
cussed by Labouchere and Hynd- 
man, 464, 465, 480, 487 

Industrial Commission of South 
Africa, 447 

International Law, studied by La- 
bouchere, 81 

Ipswich, Labouchere at, 333 

Ireland, agriculture in, 292 ; Church- 
ill in, 283, 289; disestablishment 
of the Anglican Church in, 86, 88; 
Labouchere's political sympathy 
for, 72, 225, 247, 248, 508, 521, 
523; landlordism in, 361, 264-65, 
276, 292, 361-62; Protection in, 
258, 261, 276-77; question of co- 
ercive measures in, 165-89, 225, 

251-52,313. 318-19, 329, 358-72; 
question of Home Rule for, 167, 
189, 225, 236-39, 416-17, 419, 
421-22, 508, 521, 523; correspond- 
ence on, 250-356; secret societies 
in, 171, 177 

Irish Nationalist party, the, 266, 293 ; 
Conservative advances to, 251, 
252; English feeling against, 165- 
66, 175, 240-41, 258, 285-86 

patriots in Boston, Labouchere 

among, 47, 48 

police force, Labouchere on, 

276, 292, 316 

Privy Council, Labouchere on, 

276, 277, 282, 294 

Irish World, The, 310 

Irishman, Parnell's purchase of the, 

374 
Irving, Sir Henry, appears at the 

New Queen's Theatre, 99, 102; 

mistaken for the defeated candi- 
date at Brentford, 92 
Irwin, District Police Inspector, 370 
Ismail, Khedive, his claim on the 

Soudan, 209; his rule in Egypt, 

190-95, 209 
Ismail Bey Jowdat, W. S. Blunt on, 

215, 216 
Ismail Sadyk, murder of, 193 
Ismailia, Lord Wolseley at, 208 
Italian-Turkish War, the, 538 
Italian unity, England's support of, 

284 
Italy, England's relations with, in the 

Triple Alliance, 410, 411 



Jackson, Mr., 427 

Jackson, M.P., Sir Henry, 146, 150 

Jacobin party, the, 293 

Jamal-ed Din, Sezzed, W. S. Blunt 
on, 216 

James, of Hereford, Henry, Lord, 
351 ; Attorney-General, 146, 148, 
150; counsel for the Times, 374 «.; 
his letter to Labouchere re retire- 
ment, 525 

Jameson, Dr., history of his Raid, 
426-36, 438, 452, 454 

Jerrold, Douglas, at Evans', 29 

Jerusalem, Labouchere at, iii, 112 

Jeyes, S. H., Mr. Chamberlain, 189 

Joan of Arc, 244 

Johannesburg, capture of, 454; griev- 
ances of Englishmen in, 426, 427, 

431-34, 442, 443, 451 

Johnson, Dr. Samuel, Life of, 29; 
quoted, 108 

Jordan, the, Labouchere at the 
source of, 1 12 

Joubert, his arrangement with Go- 
schen, 191 

Journalistic London, by Joseph Hat- 
ton, 38, 104 n. 

Jowdat, Ismail Bey, W. S. Blunt on, 
216 

Justice, 474 

Kensit, John, his action against 

Labouchere, 500 
K^ratry, Prefect of Police, 127 
Kerry, BuUer in, 361 , 362 
Kew Bridge, Labouchere at, 91 

Palace, Labouchere on, 409 

Khalil Pasha, outwitted at whist, 58 
Khartoum, 72; Gordon at, 212-14; 

the Mahdi at, 216 
Khedival Domains Loan, the, 193 
Khedives, rule of the, 193-200, 205, 

207-8, 224 
Kidderminster, 525 
Kilkenny, 265 

Kilmainham Gaol, Parnell's impris- 
onment in, 172-74, 187, 276, 372 
Kimberley, relief of, 441 
Kinglake, W., his history of the 

Crimean War, 62 
Kingstown, Pigott's home at, 376, 

402 
Kipling, Rudyard, his Lest We Forget 

parodied, 448 
Kirkcaldy, Campbell M.P. for, 208 
Kitawber, Labouchere joins a circus 

at, 39 
KoUi, Baron, police agent, 10 



INDEX 



553 



Kordofan, the Mahdi at, 209 
Kruger, President of the Transvaal, 
435. 442, 446, 448, 453 

Labouchere, Henry, his inherit- 
ance from his uncle, 14, 250; his 
recollections of Talleyrand, 14; 
mistaken for a son of Lord Taun- 
ton, 15 ; his love for America, 14-1 5, 
41-42, 44, 225; his birth and educa- 
tion, 16-22, 491; his alleged crib- 
bing at Cambridge, 22-27; his pro- 
pensity for gambling, 22, 29, 30, 35, 
47. 55. 65-66, 70, 491, 514; his life 
at Evans' , 28-3 1 , 70 ; at Wiesbaden, 
30; travels in South America, 31-38, 
4.96; follows a circus, 39, 40, 491; 
lives with the Chippeway Indians, 
40-41, 45; imbibes Radicalism in 
America, 41, 226; as attach^ at 
various embassies, 53-60, 66, 69, 
412, 491 ; lives in Florence during 
his appointment to Parana, 60-62 ; 
as Secretary in Constantinople, 
62; elected for Windsor and un- 
seated, 75-83; as M.P. for Middle- 
sex, 83-93; his protests against 
extravagant finance, 84, 246-47, 
409; contests Nottingham, 93; 
his proprietorship of the Daily 
News, 95, 492; his managership of 
the New Queen's Theatre, 98-104, 
491, 496; as financial editor of the 
World, 106, 491, 492; his editor- 
ship of Truth, no, 117, 492- 
512: visits the Holy Land with 
Bellew, 111-12, 496; his reminis- 
cences of Dumas, 1 13-14; his curi- 
osity as a journalist, 1 14-18; his 
lawsuits, 1 17, 500-2 ; his experiences 
in Paris during the siege, 43, 96, 
106, 1 19-41; as member for North- 
ampton, 142 et seg.; his support 
of Bradlaugh, 144-64; opposes 
coercion in Ireland, 166-90, 225, 
363-64; his Egyptian policy, 196- 
204, 205-20; his defence of Arabi, 
203, 204-5, 207, 220-26; his con- 
ception of Radical government, 
225-49, 530-34; his admiration 
for Chamberlain, 225-26; his Par- 
liamentary influence, 250, 520, 
521; negotiates between the Irish 
party and the Liberals, 252-356, 
421-22 ; see also under Chamberlain, 
Gladstone, Hartington, Parnell, 
etc.; at Twickenham, 356; at 
Michelstown, 365-71 ; discovers 



Pigott's forgeries, 360, 371-406; 
hoaxes practised on, 406-8 ; at his 
best in Opposition, 409, 423; on 
the Triple Alliance, 410, 418; his 
exclusion from the Cabinet in 
1892, 412-18, 527; at Cadenabbia, 
418-21, 423, 515, 533-34; his desire 
to become Minister at Washington, 
423; his opposition to Lord Rose- 
bery's administration, 423, 424; 
his report on the Jameson Raid, 
426-32; on the Chartered Com- 
pany of British South Africa, 431- 
34; opposes the Boer War, 438- 
457 ; discusses Socialism with Hynd- 
rnan at Northampton, 459-90; 
his chief characteristics, 496-499, 
512-15; his retirement and home 
at Florence, 517-36; his appoint- 
ment as Privy Councillor, 523, 
526, 530-31 ; on the seating of the 
House of Commons, 527-30; his 
death and burial, 536-40 

Labouchere, Heary, son of Pierre- 
Cdsar, his political career, 13-15. 
See Taunton, Baron 

Labouchere, John Peter, father of 
Henry, 14, 16; his death, 130 ».; 
visits his son at Cambridge, 27 

Labouchere, Rev. John, 21 n. 

Labouchere, Matthieu, 2 

Labouchere, Mrs., mother of Henry, 
letters from Paris to, 128 »., 130, 
138 

Labouchere, Mrs., wife of Henry, at 
the New Queen's Theatre, 99; 
death of, 535 

Labouchere, Pierre-C^sar, grand- 
father of Henry, his partnership 
in the house of Hope, 2-5; his 
portrait, 2 n.; his two sons, 13, 16; 
negotiates for peace between Eng- 
land and Prance, 4-12; restores 
French credit, 12, 13 

Labour party, rise of the, 518, 531 ' 

Labour v. Capital, discussed by Hynd- 
man and Labouchere at North- 
ampton, 460-90 

La Bruyfere, on married life, 93 

Ladies' Land League, work of the, 
173, 186 

Ladysmith, relief of, 440-41 

Lambri Pasha, 150 

Lancashire opposes Home Rule, 280 

Land Bill, the, 159, 421-22; amend- 
ments of, 187; Chambeilain on, 
329; Labouchere on, 292, 318, 320, 
332 ; Healy on, 309; rejection of, 357 



554 



INDEX 



Land League, the, establishes Boy- 
cotting, 165; its "no Rent" mani- 
festo, 172; its suppression, 172-75; 
its useful functions, 171, 358 n.; 
prosecution of, 166; the Times on, 
360, 382; two sections of, 182, 186 

Land system, English, Labouchere 
on the, 231, 234, 235, 241 

Landlordism in Ireland, Labouchere 
on, 276, 292, 295, 318 

Laon, Prussian army at, 127 

Lascelles, Sir Frank, announces the 
deposition of Ismail, 194 

Last, Parliamentary agent at Wind- 
sor, 76, 81 

Last Days of Pompeii, produced at 
the New Queen's Theatre, 100 

Latham, examiner at Cambridge, 24 

Lausanne, Pigott at, 385 

Lawley, Frank, correspondent in 
Paris during the siege, 120, 138 n., 
140 

Lawson, Lionel, at Evans', 29 

Lawson, Mr. Justice, 277 

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid, his amendment 
seconded by Labouchere, 205, 213; 
his letter to Labouchere, re retire- 
ment, 524-25; seconds Labou- 
chere's resolution against the 
House of Lords, 241 

Laycock, contests Nottingham, 93 

Leech, John, at Evans', 29 

Leeds, Balfour at, 524; Herbert 
Gladstone at, 263 

Leeds Mercury on Home Rule, 256; 
publishes Gladstone's Home Rule 
scheme, 277 n. 

Lefevre, Shaw, 266; Labouchere on, 
200-1 

Legislation, the technique of, Labou- 
chere on, 229 

Leicester, Chamberlain at, 270 

Lennox, Lord Henry, his opposition 
to Bradlaugh, 146, 150, 156 

Levi, Leone, quoted by Labouchere, 
470, 484 

Lewis, Sir George, as solicitor to 
Labouchere, 108, 501, 510; as 
solicitor to Parnell, 375-79, 386-89, 
393-98; his death, 536 

Liberal, party, its breach with the 
Irish, 172, 179, 187, 252-53; its 
policy in Egypt, 190, 194-224; 
its treatment of Gladstone, 284 

Unionist party, the, 422; 

Chamberlain joins, 228 

Licences, Brewers', Labouchere on, 
83 



Life of Parnell, O'Brien's, 174 
Limited Liability Companies, Labou- 
chere on, 465-67 
Lincoln, Mass., Egan at, 381 
Linton, Mrs. Lynn, on the staff of the 

World, 107 
Lobengula, raid on King, 433 
Local Government, Chamberlain on, 
264, 265, 311; Labouchere on, 
167, 265 
Lockwood, Mark, 455 
London, death-rate of, 463, 482-83; 
Ismail Bey Jowdat in, 216; Labou- 
chere's homes in: Albany, 78; 
Bolton Street, no, 116; Hamilton 
Place, 13-14; Old Palace Yard, 
39, 224; Portland Place, 16; 
Queen Anne's Gate, 71, 158, 177; 
Labouchere's knowledge of, 104, 
105; P.-C. Labouchfere's mission in, 

4 
Londonderry, Lord, as Viceroy of 

Ireland, 357 
Long, quoted by Hyndman, 481 
Louis XIV., religious persecutions of, 

I 
Louis XVIII. , his ministers, 12 
Louis of Bavaria, King, in Munich, 

49 

Lowe, Mr., his clause in the Public 
Schools Bill, 84 

Lowther, James, his Irish policy, 
176, 178 

Lucy, Sir Henry, More Passages by 
the Way, 3 «.; on Labouchere's 
political influence, 250; on Labou- 
chere's retirement, 526, 527; on 
the staff of the World, 107,527; 
The Balfourian Parliament, 440 

Lugard, Captain, in Uganda, 421 

Lumley, Augustus, cotillon leader in 
St. Petersburg, 57 

Lush, Lord Justice, his judgment 
against Bradlaugh, 157 

Lydon, John and Margaret, 168, 169 

Lying Clubs, Labouchere on, 11 7-1 8 

Lynch, Quested, in Paris, during the 
siege, 138 «. 

Lyons, Lord, in Paris and Tours, 
121 

Lyons, M.P., Dr., on the membership 
for Northampton, 149 

Lyre, The, proposed title for Truth, 

493 
Lytton, Lord, his mformation re the 
Berlin Congress, 192 n. 

Maamtrasna, affair of, 263 



INDEX 



555 



M'Carthy, Justin, Churchill on, 279, 
286; Daily News Jubilee, 128 «.; 
Healy on, 276; his defence of 
Arabi, 196; on the staff of the 
Daily News, 279 
M'Carthy, Rev. Mr., at Michelstown 
366 

McCuUoch, Mr., quoted, 408 

McCurdy, C. A., on Labouchere and 
Bradlaugh, 162-63 

Macdonald, Diary of the Parnell 
Commission, quoted, 383 «., 384 n., 
393 «., 402 

McKinley, President, 439 

Macmahon, Marshal, at Metz, 123-24 

Madelin, Louis, Fouche, 10 ». 

Madras, 221 

Madrid, British Embassy in, 83; 
Pigott's suicide in, 401, 405 

Magersfontein, 445 

Maguire, Mr., 428 

Mahdi, the, rebellion of, 208-20 

Malet, Sir Alexander, British repre- 
sentative at the Diet of Frankfort, 

, 55,69 

Malet, Sir Edward, 69; as Consul- 
General in Egypt, 209 

Mallet, T. L., his journal, 13 n. 

Malta, negotiations for the possession 
of, 8; reinforcement of its garri- 
son, 197 

Malthusianism, Bradlaugh's views 
on, 144; Hyndman on, 460 

Manchester, 97; Chamberlain at, 
323; death-rate of, 463 

Manchester Guardian on Home Rule, 
256 

Manning, Cardinal, supports Brad- 
laugh, 156 

M.A.P., 117; on Labouchere's re- 
tirement, 521 n. 

Marburg, Labouchere in, 59, 60 

Marcy, Mr., American Secretary of 
State, his love of whist, 49 

Marie Louise, Empress, her marriage, 

4,5 

Marienbad, Campbell Bannerman at, 
455 ; Labouchere at, 526 

Marseillaise, the, 127 n. 

Marshall, Alfred, Principles of Econo- 
mics, quoted, 482 

Marvin, translator of the Cyprus 
Convention, 192 

Marx, Carl, quoted by Hyndman, 
481 

Maryborough prison, 384 

Mashonaland, occupation of, 433 

Massey, W. H., M.P., 146, 150 



Matabele War, the, 433, 434 

Matthew, Mr. Justice, his judgment 
against Bradlaugh, 157 

Matthews, Mr., counsel, 76 n. 

Maxau, 122 n. 

Maxwell, Sir Benson, superintends 
Egyptian tribunals, 209 

Maxwell, Sir William of Monteith, 16 

May, Sir Thomas Erskine, Clerk of 
the House, 145 

Mayo, Lord his English agent, 165 

Meagher, Irish patriot, Labouchere 
mistaken for, 48 

Medicine, Labouchere's interest in 
the science of, 60, 507 

Melbourne, Lord, his laissez-faire 
policy, 229; ministry of, 13; on 
the Garter, 241 

Meredith, George, Richard Fever el, 
522 

Merewether, lawyer, contests Nor- 
thampton, 144 

Merivale, Herman, his anecdote of 
Labouchere and his uncle, 82; his 
Time and the Hour produced at the 
New Queen's Theatre, 98, 99 

Mersey, Lord, 428 

Metz, Napoleon HI. at, 122 «., 123 

Mexico, Labouchere in, 32-38, 72, 
100, 496 

Michael Angelo, Labouchere modern- 
ises the villa of, 72 

Michelstown, police charge at, 365- 
70 

Middlesex, Labouchere as member 
for in 1867, 83-86, 99, 143; Labou- 
chere contests unsuccessfully in 
1868,85-93,525 

Middlesex Coal Dues, the, Labou- 
chere on, 85 

Mijwel el Mizrab, Sheykh, 72 

Milan, decree of, 9 

Military Knights of Windsor, Labou- 
chere on, 83 

Mill, John Stuart, quoted, 247, 481, 
482 

Miller, Joaquin, 40 

Milner, Alfred, Lord, as Commis- 
sioner for South Africa, 435, 442; 
as Governor of Cape Colony, 437, 
442, 445, 448, 456; his England 
in Egypt quoted, 210 

Minneapolis, Labouchere at, 41 

Mississippi steamboats, the, 106 

Modern Egypt, Lord Cromer's, 213 

Moham.ed Ahmed. See Mahdi 

Moliere, Marie-Madeleine, 2 

Mollerus, Dutch statesman, 6 



556 



INDEX 



Moltke, rumour of his death, 134 

Monarchy, English, Labouchere on, 
230-31, 233, 242-43 

Moncrieff , Colonel Scott-, directs the 
irrigation of Egypt, 209 

Monson, Sir Edmund, his letter to 
Labouchere re retirement, 526 

Mont Blanc, 44 

Monteith, Maxwell of, 16 

Montes, Lola, 49 

Montreal, Healy at, 310 

Moonlighting in Ireland, 173 

Moore, Messrs. Telbin and, 98 

More's Utopia, 489 

Morgan, Osborne, his speeches on 
Ireland, 260 

Morley, Arnold, his mediation on the 
Home Rule question, 322, 334, 
338-43. 347; part proprietor of 
the Daily News, 95 

Morley of Blackburn, John, Earl, 
Chamberlain on, 299, 302, 326; 
Davitt on, 257-58; his letters to 
Labouchere re Home Rule, 317, 
327, 331; his Life of Gladstone 
quoted, 365 «., 371, 382, 422; his 
resignation, 325; his views on 
Home Rule, 309, 322, 329, 332, 
333; Labouchere on, 282, 324, 327; 
on Gladstone's Egyptian policy, 
190; opposes coercion in Ireland, 173 

Morning Post, Bowles correspondent 
in Paris of the, 141 «.; Grenvilel 
Murray as correspondent of, 67; 
on Labouchere's retirement, 52 1-22 

"Moss, Moses," 505 

Mott's Foley Street rooms, 105 

Moulton, Mr. Gladstone's letter to, 

353 
Mountmorres, Lord, murder of, 165 
Mudford, journalist, 278 
Mulgrave, Lord, Viceroy of Ireland, 

251 

Mulhall, Mr., statistician, 485 
Mundella, Minister for Education, 

285 
Munich, Labouchere as attach^ in, 

49. 50 
Murat, Joachim, as King of Naples, 

8,9 

Murphy, David, cashier, 396 
Murphy, Serjeant, at Evans', 29; 

counsel for the Times, 374 n. 
Murray, Grenville, betrays official 

secrets in the Morning Post, 67-68 ; 

his action against Lord Carrington, 

no ».; on the staff of the World, 

109 



Nantes, P.-C. Labouchere at, 2 
Napier, Mr., his defence of Arabi, 

222 
Naples, kingdom of, 8 
Napoleon I., his ideal woman, 246; 

Labouchere on, 480; negotiates for 

peace with England, 5-12 
Napoleon III. at Metz, 122 «., 123- 

24; his imprisonment, 122, 124-25, 

126; his plan of campaign, 122 n., 

123 
Natal, war spirit in, 437, 438, 449 
National, debt, Labouchere on the, 

475,477 , , , ^ 
income, the, Labouchere on, 

465 

National Reformer, Bradlaugh's state- 
ment of his case in the, 146-47 

Nationalisation, of land, Labouchere 
on the, 235 

of railways, Labouchere on, 

486, 487 

Navy, Labouchere on the, 478 

Neutrality Law, Labouchere on the 
inadequacy of the English, 81 

Newcastle, 478 

Newgate, Labouchere's description 
of, 1 14-15 

Newman, Cardinal, his position in 
regard to Bradlaugh, 156 

Newmarket, Labouchere at, 22 

New Mexico, Pueblas of, 486 

New Queen's Theatre, Labouchere 
as manager of, 98-104 

Newton, Mr., censure of, 428 

New Windsor, Labouchere's election 
for, 75-82 

New York, 106; Healy m, 310; La- 
bouchere in, 41 

New York Herald, 382, 526 

Nice, Labouchere at, 95, 97 

Nicholas, Emperor, Lord Stratford's 
hatred of, 63 

Nicholson's Nek, 440 

Nineteenth Century, Cardinal Man- 
ning's article in the, 156 

Nolan, M.P., Colonel, 146, 150; his 
returns, 302 

Nolte, Vincent, his reminiscences of 
P.-C. Labouchere, 3, 4 «. 

Nonconformists, their anti-Irish feel- 
ing, 306 

Norfolk, Labouchere in, 22 

Norman, Henry, 278 

North Briton, 164 

North Camberwell, Labouchere at, 
247 

Northampton, Bradlaugh returned 



INDEX 



557 



Northampton — Continued 

for, 142-45, 149, 151-52, 157; 
Hyndman at, 459; industrialism 
of, 462, 467; Labouchere, M.P. 
for, 14, 105, 106, 116, 142-45, 148- 
49, 158, 159, 161, 167, 225, 410, 415- 
18, 459, 465, 503; Labouchere's 
retirement from, 518-527; Liberal 
and Radical Association, its tribute 
to Labouchere, 539-40 

Northampton Echo quoted, 162 

Northampton Mercury quoted, 143, 
144 n. 

Northbrook, Lord, 13 n. 

Northcote, Sir Stafford, his motion 
against Bradlaugh, 146, 152-55; 
his motion on the Egyptian policy, 
213 

Norway, Gladstone in, 257 

Nottingham, contested by Labou- 
chere, 93 

Nubar, his Premiership, 193-94 

O'Brien, R. Barry, his articles on 
the Irish question, 257; his Life 
of Lord Russell of Killowen, 391 n.; 
his Life of Parnell quoted, 252 n., 
257 «.; on the murder of Lord F. 
Cavendish, 174-75 

O'Brien, Smith, his Irish rising, 48 

O'Brien, W., 312; Healy on, 276, 
363; his influence in Ireland, 533; 
his Irish policy, 256 

O'Connor, John, at Michelstown, 365 

O'Connor, Mrs. T. P., her reminis- 
cence of Labouchere among the 
Indians, 40-41 

O'Connor, T. P., on the Coercion Bill, 
178; on Labouchere's retirement, 
520-21; supports the Tories re 
Home Rule, 261, 266 

Odessa, Grenville Murray as Consul 
at, 68, no 

O'Donnell, F. H., his case against 
the Times, 372-74, 392 

O'Donoghue, The, on Labouchere, 169 

O 'Kelly, James, Pigott forgeries of 
his letters, 386, 394, 396 

OUivier, French Premier, resignation 
of, 124 

Onslow, M.P., David, 146 

Oppenheim, Henry, 287; part pro- 
prietor of the Daily News, 95 

Orange Free State, annexation of the, 
445, 449, 454, 456 

Orangemen oppose Home Rule, 291, 

294, 345 
Orinoco, s.s., 31 



Orthez, home of the Labouchere 
family, i 

Orton, Arthur, dines with Labou- 
chere, 116 

O'Shea, Captain, Healy on, 276; his 
supposed share in the forged letters, 
373, 381; negotiates between Par- 
nell and Gladstone, 173 

O'Shea, J. Augustus, correspondent 
in Paris during the siege, 141 n. 

Osman Digna captures Tokar, 213 

Ostrogotha, Duchess of, her baby's 
birth, 53 

Otrante, Due d'. See Fouchd. 

Ouvrard, tool of Fouchd, 10-12 

Oxford, Henry Labouchere the elder 
at, 13 

Palikao, Count, French Premier, 
124 

Pall Mall Gazette, Bingham corre- 
spondent in Paris for, 141 ».; in- 
spired by Gladstone, 278; Mor- 
ley's editorship of, 173; refuses 
Pigott forgeries, 375, 406; Stead's 
letter in, 411; W. S. Blunt's de- 
fence of Arabi in, 222 

Palmerston, Lord, 46 n.; his agree- 
ment with Murray, 67--68 

Palmyra, Labouchere at, 72 

Palto at Twickenham, 356 

Parana, Republic of, Labouchere's 
appointment to, 60 

Paris, British Embassy in, 83, 120; 
death of Grenville Murray in, 
no «.; headquarters of the Land 
League in, 172, 181, 182, 186; 
Labouchere in, 30, 31; Labou- 
chere's letters to London during 
the siege of, 43, 44, 96, 106, 119, 
124-41; Louis Buonaparte in, 8; 
Parnell letters in, 385, 386, 389; 
P.-C. Labouchere summoned by 
Napoleon to, 1 1-12 ; Pigott in, 394- 
95, 396, 401; public parks of, 84; 
Queen Christina in, 245 

Parish Councils Bill, the, 422, 479 

Parliament, House of Commons, 
extravagance of, 410; payment 
of members of, 229, 230; reasons 
for entering, 74; seating accom- 
modation of, 527-30; triennial 
election of, 229, 248 

Parliament, House of Lords, abolition 
of, 226, 230-33, 238-42, 248, 417, 
422, 425 n., 527, 531-34; its ob- 
struction of the Home Rule Bill, 
290 



558 



INDEX 



Parliamentary, journalist, Labou- 
chere as, 504 

Oaths Act, the, its bearing in the 

case of Bradlaugh, 145, 151, 155, 
157, 160 . 

Parnell, Charles Stewart, speaks m 
favour of Bradlaugh, 153; as 
president of the Land League, 165, 
166, 177, 182, 358 n.; his imprison- 
ment and release, 172-74, 252, 254; 
his position as Irish leader during 
the Home Rule struggle, 173-189, 
236, 237, 252-356; his confidence 
in Labouchere, 250; Lord Car- 
narvon treats with, 252; his mo- 
tives discussed by Healy, 254, 266, 
271, 274, 276, 285, 290, 362; Davitt 
on, 257-58; Chamberlain on, 266- 
67, 317; Labouchere on, 273, 280, 
312, 314-17, 332, 337; his letters to 
Labouchere re Home Rule, 275-76; 
on Gladstone, 278; introduces the 
Land Bill, 357; publication of his 
supposed letters in the Times, 359- 
60, 361, 371; his amendment to the 
Speech from the Throne, 369; 
denies the authorship of his 
supposed letters, 372-73, 397; his 
defence by Sir C. Russell, 374 «., 
375. 392-98; his unpopularity in 
America, 378; his letters to Labou- 
chere re the Pigott forgeries, 383-84 

Parnell Commission, the, history of, 
360, 373-97 

Parnell, Miss, president of the Ladies' 
Land League, 173 

Paul, Herbert, A History of Modern 
England, quoted, 195 »., 209 ».; on 
Arabi, 195-96 

Peace Preservation Bill, the, 172 

Pearl, Cora, in the siege of Paris, 43 

Pease, Maker, 353 

Peel, Arthur Wellesley, 76 »., 270 

Pelletan, M., member of the Pro- 
visional Government, 127 

Pemberton, M.P., Mr., 146, 150 

Peninsular War, the, 5-8 

Penny Illustrated Paper, interview 
with Labouchere in, 529 n. 

Perceval, Mr., ministry of, 6-7 

Percy, Lord, his attitude to Brad- 
laugh, 146, 149 

Persia, despotism of, 469 

Peruvian bondholders, 212 

Peter the Hermit, 217 

Petty Bag, office of. Clerk of the, 246 

Phillips, Lionel, director of the South 
Africa Company, 426 



Phipps, brewer, contests Northamp 
ton, 144 

Picard, Ernest, member of the Re- 
publican Government, 117 

Piccadilly Saloon, the, 105 

Pichegru invades Holland, 4 

Pigott, Richard, Healy on, 309-10; 
his sale of the Irishman to Parnell, 
374; his forgery of the Parnell- 
Egan correspondence, 373-406; his 
confession to Labouchere, 394, 402; 
his flight and suicide, 394, 402-406 

Pisani, Alexander, as head of the 
Diplomatic Chancellerie, Constan- 
tinople, 64 

Pitt, William, 287; his graduated 
income-tax, 247 

Plato, 489 

Plunkett, Mr., 410 

Poland, English sympathy with, 284; 
Ireland compared with, 189 

Polynesia, industrialism of, 486 

Ponsonby, Sir H., 319 

Pope, Alexander, his villa at Twicken- 
ham, 40 

Portland, Duke of, ministry of, 6 

Port Said, occupation of, 201, 267 

Portugal, destiny of, 9 

Post Office, Labouchere on the, 478; 
nomination of Labouchere for, 412 

Savings Bank, Labouchere 

on the, 477 

Pretoria, British agent in, 442; cap- 
ture of, 440, 445-46, 454; Jameson's 
imprisonment in, 434 

Prevention of Crimes in Ireland Bill, 
passing of the, 175, 185-190, 248 

Primrose League, the, its misstate- 
ments re Pigott, 404 

Privy Council, the, Labouchere be- 
comes a member of, 523, 526, 530, 

531 
Procedure Resolutions, the, 187 
Promissory Oaths Act, the, 155 
Protection, Labouchere on, 531, 533; 

Parnell's attitude to, 258, 261, 276- 

77 
of Life and Property in Ireland, 

Forster's Bill for, 166-74 
Prussia, Crown Prince of, advances 

on Paris, 123, 127 
Public Schools Bill, the, Labouchere 

on, 84 
Puebla di los Angelos, Labouchere at, 

34 
Punch, reminiscences of Labouchere 

in, 526, 527 
Pursebearer, office of, 246 



INDEX 



559 



Pythagoras, Labouchere on, 515, 
516 

Queen's Messenger, Labouchere's pro- 
prietorship of the, denied, no 
Queensberry, Sybil, Lady, 72 
Quotla di Amalpas, Labouchere at, 
36, 38, 62 

Radical Party, the, Chamberlain's 
secession regarded as its fall, 228, 
250, 318, 319, 352, 354; its attitude 
to the Egyptian policy, 196, 198- 
200, 212, 215, 217-19, 249; its 
attitude to Socialism, 462-89; its 
sympathy with Ireland, 72, 225, 
248, 252, 318; its treatment by the 
Irish, 252; Labouchere as un- 
official leader of, 196, 198, 525; 
Labouchere's ideals for, 225-48, 

259, 304, 318, 319. 525 
Radical principles, Labouchere's, 

their divergence from Whig prin- 
ciples, 42 
Rawson, Henry, part proprietor of 

the Daily News, 97 
Reade, Charles, as a dramatic author, 

101-2 
Recruiting, system of, in America for 

the Crimean War, 45 
Redmond, J. E., as leader of the Irish 

party, 524, 533 
Redpath, American Fenian, 170 
Reed, correspondent of the Leeds 

Mercury, 272 
Referee, The, 537 n. 
Reform Club, the, Labouchere at, 

75, 89, 182, 198, 228, 318 
Registration Laws, the English, 448 
Reid, Wemyss, 393 
Reitz, Dr., Secretary of State for 

the Transvaal, 444, 447, 451 
Religious Disabilities Removal Bill, 

the, 160, 163-4 
Rent Act, 421 
Reporter, interview with Labouchere 

in, 477 

Representation of the People Bill, 
the, Labouchere on, 244 

Revelstoke, Lord, as a politician, 
240 

Reynolds's newspaper, 471 

Rhodes, Cecil, his complicity in the 
Jameson Raid, 426-30, 452, 453; 
his Imperialism, 435; Labouchere's 
personal admiration of, 430, 435, 
436; Labouchere's public con- 
demnation of, 430-1 



Rhodesia, 435 

Riaz Pasha, administration of, 195, 
221 

Ripon, Lord, his government in 
India, 210 

Roberts, Earl, at Eton, 18; his com- 
mand in South Africa, 441, 445 

Robertson, manager of the Royal 
Aquarium, his libel action against 
Labouchere, 501 

Robertson, M.P., J. M., his account 
of Bradlaugh'sparliamentary strug- 
gle, 142 n. 

Robinson, Lionel, on Labouchere's 
financial interest in the Daily News, 
96 

Robinson, Sir John, Fifty Years of 
Fleet Street, quoted, 133 ».; mana- 
ger of the Daily News, 96, 120, 
128 n. ; on the syndicate of the Daily 
News, 95 

Rochdale, 484; Chamberlain at, 322 

Rochefort, Henri, release and triumph 
of, 127, 130 

Roell, Dutch statesman, 6 

Roman Catholicism in Ireland, La- 
bouchere on, 86 

Roman Catholics delighted by Glad- 
stone's article against Darwin, 267 ; 
support Bradlaugh, 156 

Rome, 535; Fouch^, Governor of, 
II, 12 

Ronan, counsel for the Times, 374 n. 

Rosebery, Earl of, as Foreign Secre- 
tary, 420, 423; Chamberlain on 
his Home Rule policy, 298; his 
letters to Labouchere re Home 
Rule, 268, 277, 283, 287, 307; his 
Premiership, 423, 424; Labou- 
chere on, 224 

Rosmead, Lord, his work as Com- 
missioner in South Africa, 428, 
429 

Rossa, O'Donovan, 284, 310 

Rothschild, Baron, as a politician, 
240; his Egyptian loans, 190, 191, 
193) I94i 206; procures Labou- 
chere a pass, 140 

Rouen, Labouchere at, 120 

Rouher, M., on the French army, 123 

Rousby, Mrs. Wybert, appears at 
the New Queen's Theatre, 99, 102 

Rousseau, J. -J., on his own education, 
21 

Rovigo, Due de. Napoleon's aide-de- 
camp, II 

Royal Aquarium, Westminster, Rob- 
inson manager of, 501 



56o 



INDEX 



Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds, 
Labouchere on the upkeep of, 84, 
409 

Rudini, Marchesa di, daughter of 
Labouchere, 535, 539-4^ 

Rumbold, Sir Horace, meets Labou- 
chere at Constantinople, 63 

Ruppenheim, Schloss of, Labouchere 
at, 54 

Russell, Charles (Lord Russell of 
Killowen), his defence of Labou- 
chere, 501; his defence of Parnell, 
374 »M 375. 378, 384. 389-98, 402; 
on the Coercion Bill, 182 

Russell, Lord John, Foreign Secre- 
tary, appoints Labouchere to 
Buenos Ayres, 65; chec;ks Labou- 
chere 's information from St. Peters- 
burg, 59 

Russell, Odo, in Pans during the 
siege, 120 

Russians, the, Labouchere's opinion 
of. 56, 57; their method of play- 
ing cards, 58 

Ryder, Mr., in The Last Days of 
Pompeii, loo-i 



Saarbruck, French Army Corps at, 
124 

St. Anthony's Falls, 41 

St. Augustine, Confessions of, 21 

St. Cloud, Napoleon at, lO 

St. James's Club, Labouchere's mem- 
bership of, 70 

St. James's Hall, Home Rule meeting 
at, 324, 327 

St. Martin's Hall, 98 

St. Patrick, Order of, 241 

St. Paul, Labouchere at, 40 

St. Petersburg, Crampton Ambas- 
sador at, 46 n.; Labouchere as 
attache in, 52, 55-60 

St. Thomas, Labouchere at, 32 

Sala, George Augustus, at Evans', 29; 
his reminiscences of Labouchere, 
99, 116; witnesses Pigott's con- 
fession, 394, 398-401 

Sale of Liquor on Sundays Bill, the, 

83 
Salisbury, Marquis of, attends the 
Berlin Congress, 191, 192; his 
Egyptian policy as Foreign Secre- 
tary, 191-4, 221, 223; Irish policy 
of his first administration, 251, 
257, 270, 271, 274, 286 n., 288, 305; 
Churchill's letter to, re Home Rule, 
279-80, 298; his defeat and resig- 



nation, 317 «.; as leader of the 
Opposition, 319, 344, 347; his 
second administration, 357, 406, 
409, 411; his third administration, 
438; on the Transvaal, 441, 450, 

451 
Sampson, city editor of the Times, 

Labouchere's attacks on, 107 
San Francisco, Healy in, 310 
Sardinia, kingdom of, 61 
Sardou, La Patrie, 103 
Saturday Review on Labouchere, 513 
Saunders, Labouchere on, 352 
Sazary, Napoleon's aide-de-camp, 11 
Schalk, Burger, President, 456 
Scholl, Aur^lien, 120 
Schreiner, Mr., 449 
Schwarzenberg, Prince, Premier of 

Austria, Palmerston's grudge 

against, 67 
Scudamore, F. I., on the staff of the 

World, 107 
Sculthorpe Rectory, Fakenham, 21 ». 
Seagrove, Captain, at Michelstown, 

368, 369, 372 
Secret Societies in Ireland, 171, 177 
Sedan, battle of, 125, 127 
Selby, Lord, his letter to Labouchere 

re retirement, 524 
Sexton, his imprisonment, 172, 174; 

his services in the Irish party, 260, 

261, 315, 363; on the Coercion 

Bill, 178, 187 
Sezzed Jamal ed Din, 216 
Shakespearian revivals announced 

by Labouchere, 104 
Shannon, solicitor, Pigott's letter to, 

395. 401 
Shaw, George Bernard, 496 
Sheffield, attach^ in Paris, 120 
Sheffield Telegraph on Bradlaugh, 

145 
Shekan, battle of, 210, 212 
Sheppard, Jack, relics of, in Newgate, 

115 

Sherif Pasha, administration of, 209 

Shipman, Dr., M.P. for Northamp- 
ton, 519 

Sicily, kingdom of, 8, 9 

Simla, Lord Lytton at, 192 n. 

Simon, Jules, member of the Pro- 
visional Government, 127 

Simon, M.P., Serjeant, 146, 150; de- 
fends Forster's Irish Bill, 169 

Simpson, Palgrave, part author of 
Time and the Hour, 98 n. 

Sixty Years in the Wilderness, by 
Sir H. Lucy, quoted, 250 n. 



INDEX 



561 



Smith, Barnard, his complaint against 

Labouchere for cribbing, 23-26 
Smith, J. G., at Northampton, 489 
Smith, Librarian in the House of 

Commons, 301 
Smith, Sir Archibald Levin, member 

of the Parnell Commission, 373 
Smith, W. H., on the Coercion Bill, 

187 
Soames, Mr., solicitor, concerned in 

the Parnell forgery case, 360, 385, 

389, 395. 401. 405 

Social Democratic Federation, pro- 
gramme of the, 474-76 

Socialism, Labouchere 's attitude to, 
418, 458-89 

Socrates, Labouchere on, 516 

Soissons, 123 n. 

Soudan, the, Gordon as Governor- 
General of, 209 

War, the, 209-18, 434 

South Africa, Labouchere's sym- 
pathy with, 259 

South African Republic. See Trans- 
vaal. 

South America, Labouchere's visit 
to, 31-8 

Southampton, 441 

Southwark, representation of, 93 

Spain, kingdom of, 8, 199 

Spencer, Lord, as Viceroy of Ireland, 
174, 178, 181, 184, 186, 267, 317, 
320 

Spender, James, Montagu White on, 
447, 448 

Spezia, Labouchere at, 109 

Spion Kop, 441 

Stael, Madame de, questions Na- 
poleon on his ideal woman, 246 

Stamf orth, John, contests Athlone, 525 

Standard, The, on Home Rule, 256; 
O'Shea correspondent in Paris for, 
141 «. ; publishes Gladstone's Home 
Rule scheme, 277 n., 286 n. 

Stanley, Hon. Frederick, 76 n. 

Stansfield, 338 

Stead, William, his letter in the Pall 
Mall Gazette, 41 1 

Stewart, Colonel, his information re 
Hicks Pasha, 210 

Stewart, Patrick, 170 

Stockholm, Labouchere's duel while 
attache in, 50, 51, 72 

Stormberg, 440 

Strassburg, French army at, 122 n. 

Stratford de Redcliffe, Lord, as Am- 
bassador at Constantinople, 62, 
63,68 



Stratford-on-Avon, Mr. Flower of, 

75 

Stroud, Labouchere at, 332 

Stuart, Professor James, speaks 
against the Coercion Bill, 363 

Suakim, political importance of, 214- 
18 

Suez Canal, the, political importance 
of, 199, 201, 204, 206 

Suffrage, Adult Manhood, Labou- 
chere on, 229-48 

Woman, Labouchere's oppo- 
sition to, 244-46 

Sugden, Charles James, Labouchere's 
letter to, re prefaces, 537 

Swansea, Chamberlain at, 189 

Sweating Committee, the, 471 

in Government oflfices, 478-79 

Sweden, Queen of, 53 

Swift, Dean, on cattle-maiming, 169 

Sydney, N.S.W., 393 

Talana, battle of, 440 

Talavera, battle of, 7 

Talleyrand, Prince, presents Labou- 
chere with a box of dominoes, 14 

Tariff Reform, Labouchere on, 532 

Taunton, Henry Labouchere the 
elder M.P. for, 13, 14-15; Sir 
Henry James M.P. for, 525 

Taunton, Henry, Baron, differen- 
tiates between himself and his 
brother, 16; is invited to assist his 
nephew at Windsor, 82; La- 
bouchere declines to inherit his 
title, 251 ; political career of, 13-15, 

67 

Taxation on food and drink, Labou- 
chere on, 236 

Taylor, Tom, Joan. of Arc, X02; Twixt 
Axe and Crown, 99 

Telbin and Moore, Messrs., 98 

Tel-el-Kebir, battle of, 70, 198, 218 

Temple Bar, "Over Babylon to Baal- 
bek," 113 

Temps, Le, on Lord Rosebery, 420 

Terry, Ellen, at Twickenham, 356; 
in the Double Marriage, 99 

Tewfik, Khedive, his rule in Egypt, 
194, 211 

Thackeray, W. M., 497; at Evans', 
29 

Theatre-goers, Labouchere on, loi, 
102 

Therapia, British Embassy in, 83 

Ther^se Raquin, 338 

Thesiger, Q. C, acts as counsel for 
Abbot V. Labouchere, 108, 109 



562 



INDEX 



Thiers, Histoire du Consulat et de 

I'Empire, lo «. 
Thistle, Order of the, 241 
Thornton, banker, 16 
Thornton, Edward, Labouchere's 

letters to, 518, 530-31 
Thornton, Godfrey, 14 n. 
Thornton, Rev. Spenser, 14 n. 
Tichborne case, the, Labouchere's 

reminiscences of , 116 
Time and the Hour, production of, 

Times, The, Arabi s letter to, 222; 
Bell manager of, 436; denuncia- 
tions of its city edition by Labou- 
chere, 108; its case against O'Don- 
nell, 371-74, 392; its case against 
Parnell, 377-94; its correspond- 
ents in Paris during the siege, 141 
n.; Labouchere denies proprietor- 
ship of Queen's Messenger in, no; 
Labouchere's letters in, re his ex- 
clusion from the Cabinet, 415; La- 
bouchere's letters to, re Home Rule, 
291-98, 304, 309, 356; Labouchere's 
letters to, re the Income Tax, 246 ; 
on Home Rule, 256, 293; on La- 
bouchere's letters from Paris, 119; 
on the Middlesex election of 1868, 
87-89, 92; on "Parnellism and 
Crime," 358-60, 364-65, 367, 371; 
on the Windsor election petition, 
78-80; publishes Gladstone's Home 
Rule scheme, 277 «.; publishes 
supposed letters from Parnell, 
359, 371-75, 405; quoted, 438; 
report of Soudanese War in, 219 

Times' History of the War in South 
Africa, The, quoted, 429 n., 437 n., 
456 «. 

Tipperary, 135 

Tokar, conquest of, 213 

Tonsley, Mr., 415 

Toole, J. L., plays at New Queen's 
Theatre, 99 

Tory democrats, Labouchere on, 248 

Toulba Pasha, exile of, 22 1 

Tours, Crawford correspondent at, 
120, 121 

Trades Unionism, Labouchere on, 

471 

Trainbearer, office of, 246 

Transvaal, English population of, 
426, 428, 436, 437; its invasion by 
Dr. Jameson, 426-37 

Trevelyan, Sir George, 150, 407; 
Healy on, 267, 303; on the Coer- 
cion Bill, 180, 188 



Triple Alliance, the, Labouchere's 
opinions on, 410, 418 

Trochu, General, Commander-in- 
chief in Paris, 125, 129; Labou- 
chere's estimate of, 136, 137 

Truth, Grenville Murray's "Queer 
Stories," 109; Horace Voules as 
manager and editor of, 493-512; 
Labouchere's editorship of, 14, 106, 
109, no, 117, 493-511; Labou- 
chere's reminiscences of youth in, 
17 n., 20 n., 30-46, 53 «., 91; libel 
actions against, 472, 499-502 ; on the 
Boer War, 445 n., 446, 455, 457; on 
Bradlaugh, 161; on Chamberlain, 
228; on the Chartered Company of 
B.S.A., 431-34; on the Egyptian 
policy, 200, 202, 204-5; on his ex- 
clusion from the Cabinet, 415; on 
hoaxes, 405-8; on Home Rule, 287, 
315; on the House of Commons, 
529-30; on India, 200; on the 
Irish question, 187-89; on Lord 
Dudley, 525; on the Michelstown 
murders, 369, 370; on the Pigott 
forgeries, 375, 404, 405; on owning 
a dog; parody of Lest We Forget, 
in, 448; Queen Victoria's dislike 
to Labouchere's proprietorship of, 
414; "The Ghastly Gaymarket," 
105 «. 

Tryon, Sir George, at Eton, 18 

Tunis, French occupation of, 192 

Turin, Nationalist sympathies in, 61 

Turkey, its intervention in Egypt, 
194-202; its relations with Eng- 
land, 196-97, 199; leases Cyprus to 
England, 191, 192 

Turner, Colonel, in Ireland, Healy 
on, 361 

Tuscany, deposition of the Grand 
Duke of, 61, 62 

Twickenham, Labouchere at, 40, 323- 
28, 333, 354, 356, 408 

Twixt Axe and Crown, produced at 
New Queen's Theatre, 99 

Uganda, English policy in, Labou- 
chere on, 421 

Uitlanders, grievances of the, 426, 
427, 437, 442, 451 

Ulster, opposition to Home Rule m, 
280, 284, 291, 299, 345 

United Ireland, 2^55 n., 257, 309 

United States of America, salary of 
the President, 42 

Usedom, Countess d', caricature of, 
70 



INDEX 



563 



Valencay, Kolli at, 10 

Vandort, Dr., physician to Arabi 

Pasha, 220 
Vanity Fair, 492 
Vansittart, Mr., contests Windsor, 

76,77 

Venezuela, 434 

Venice, Labouchere at, ill 

Vera Cruz, Labouchere at, 32-35, 38 

Verdun, Bazaine at, 124 

Versailles, Labouchere at, 139, 140; 
Prussian army at, 127, 128, 139, 
140 

Victor Emmanuel II., Labouchere's 
reminiscences of, 62 

Victoria, Queen, 85; Gladstone sub- 
mits scheme for Home Rule to, 
270, 277, 286 «., 288; her Civil List, 
234; her objection to Labou- 
chere's inclusion in the Ministry, 
67, 413-15; King Louis of Bavaria 
inquires for, 49 

Vienna, Grenville Murray attach^ 
in, 68; Labouchere in, 529; public 
parks of, 84 

Villa d'Este, Labouchere at, 535, 536 

Vinoy, General, in Paris, 128 n., 136 

Vivian, Lord, as Consul-General in 
Egypt, 194 

Voisin's, Paris, 139 

Voltaire, Labouchere's neutrality 
compared with, 220, 513 

Voltaire on Labouchere, 412 

Voters' Bill, a, Healy on, 273 

Voules, Horace, his editorship of 
Truth, 493-512 

Vulpera Tarasp, Labouchere at, 

450,454 ^. , 

Vyse, Colonel, contests Windsor, 76 



Waddington, M., at the Berlin Con- 
gress, 192 n. 

Wady Haifa, 217 

Wagner, F.S.A., Henry, his "Labou- 
chere Pedigree, " 14 n. 

"Wait and See" policy, the, Cham- 
berlain on, 300 

Walcheren, expedition to, 6 

Walker, John F., 106-7 

Walpole, Sir Robert, declines a de- 
coration, 241 

Walpole, M.P., Spencer, chairman of 
Select Committee on Bradlaugh 
case, 146, 150 

Walsh, Archbishop of Dublin, 
Churchill on, 282; his relations 
with Pigott, 381, 392, 404 



Walter, case of O'Donnell v., 372, 

373-74 

War Loan Bill, the, 441 

Warr, Lord de la, his interest in 
Arabi, 221, 223 

Warrington, Chamberlain at, 257, 258 

Wars of Religion, the, i 

Warton, M.P., Mr., on Bradlaugh, 
149, 163 

Washburne, Elihu, American Am- 
bassador in Paris during the siege, 

43 

Washington, Labouchere as attach^ 

at, 39, 45-46, 72 ; Labouchere's am- 
bition to become Ambassador at, 

71. 423 

Waterhouse, Major, 76 n. 

Waterloo, battle of, 42, 57 

Webster, Sir Richard, Attorney- 
General, on Parnell's supposed 
letters, 372-73, 386, 395, 397, 406; 
his examination of Pigott, 386-89 

Weissenburg, battle of, 123 

Welby, Lord, on Labouchere at Eton, 
18 

Wellesley, Lord, English Foreign 
Secretary, P.-C. Labouchere's mis- 
sion to, 5-10 

Wellington, Arthur, first Duke of, 
in the Peninsula, 7; on the battle 
of Waterloo, 42, 57 

West, Sir Algernon, at Eton, 18 

Westminster, Duke of, on the Irish 
party, 315 

Hall, Women's Suffrage Petition 

in, 246 

Westmoreland, Earl of, as Ambassa- 
dor in Vienna, 68 

Whalem, Bridget and Patrick, 168-69 

Wharton, Mr., 427 

Whewell, Master of Trinity, en- 
counters Labouchere, 27-28 

Whig party, the, Labouchere on, 229, 

248,305 

Whig principles, their divergence 
from Radical principles, 42 

Whist as a diplomatist's game, 49, 
55,58 

Whitbread, M.P., Mr., 146, 150 

White, Mr., on the Triple Alliance, 
411 

White, Montagu, Labouchere's corre- 
spondence with, 446-49, 451, 455 

Wicklow, Parnell at, 258 

Wiesbaden, Labouchere at, 30, 54 

Wigan, Alfred, comedian, part man- 
ager of the New Queen's Theatre, 
98 



564 



INDEX 



Wilkes, John, his straggle for politi- 
cal liberty, 163, 164 

Williams, M.P., Watkin, 146, 150 

Williams, Deacon, Thornton and 
Labouchere, bank of, 16 

Willoughby, Captain, his part in the 
Jameson Raid, 426 

Wilson, Sir Rivers, as English Com- 
missioner and Finance Minister in 
Egypt, 193, 194, 206 

Wilton Park, Bucks, 16 

Winchilsea, Lord, on the staff of the 
World, 107 

Winchester, Thorold, Bishop of, 2 n. 

Windsor, Labouchere elected for, and 
unseated, 70, 74-83, 95, 493 

Wingfield, Lewis, in Paris during the 
siege, 138 n. 

Winterbotham, chairman at Stroud, 
332 

Wodehouse, English Ambassador m 
Paris during the siege, 43 

Woking, Dilke at, 327 

Wolff, Sir Henry Drammond, his 
motion against Bradlaugh, 146, 
147, 150, 163 

Wolseley, Garnet, Viscount, his mis- 
sion in Egypt, 197, 208 



Wolverhampton, Lord. See Fowler, 

SirH. 
Wolverton, Lord, on Chamberlain 

and the Irish party, 337 
Women, votes for, Labouchere's op- 
position to, 244-47, 517 
Wood, Sir Evelyn, his command in 

Egypt, 209 
WooUaston, examiner at Cambridge, 

24 
Woolwich, Chamberlain at, 323 
World, The, Labouchere's connection 

with, 94, 106-11, 492, 495, 527 
Worth, battle of, 124, 127 
Wyndham, Charles, at New Queen's 

Theatre, 99 
Wyndham, George, member of the 

South Africa Commission, 427, 435, 

436 

Yarmouth, 6 

Yates, Edmund, at Evans', 29; 
editor of the World, 492, 502; on 
Labouchere as a contributor, 106- 
II 

Zanzibaris, troop of, in Uganda, 421 



Jt Selection from the 
Catalogue of 

G, P. PUTNAM'S SONS 



Complete Catalogue s«n% 
on application 



NOV m 1913 



Memoirs of a Prima 
Donna 

By Clara Louise Kellogg 

(Mme. Strakosch) 

S°. With 4S Illustrations. $2,50 net 
By mail, $2.75 

Clara Louise Kellogg, who is now Clara Louise Stra- 
kosch, was the first American prima donna to win re- 
cognition abroad. After making her debut in opera at 
the Academy of Music, in New York, in 1 86i , she appeared 
in opera in London and later in Berlin, Vienna, and Saint 
Petersburg. In every country she was received with 
acclaim and returned to her native land covered with 
honors showered upon her by the best audiences that 
the old world affords. 

Miss Kellogg created the r61e of Marguerite in Gounod's 
Faust in this country, and of Mignon in Ambroise 
Thomas's opera of that name. After winning laurels 
in Italian opera she organized an English opera company 
of her own, which sang for several seasons in New York 
and the principal cities of the United States. While at 
the head of her own company she produced Wagner's 
Flying Dutchman for the first time in America, creating 
the rdle of Senta, and she was the first prima donna to 
sing A'ida and Carmen in English. Miss Kellogg was 
famous not only for the beautiful quality of her voice but 
for her marvelous musical ear. It is said that there were 
over forty operas that she could sing on twenty-four 
hours' notice, and that never once in the course of her 
operatic career had she been known to sing a fraction of 
a tone off the key. 

These Memoirs are filled with anecdotes of the interest- 
ing people whom she met, on and off the stage, and con- 
tain a fund of information about voice culture and the 
study of music that no one interested in the subject can 
read without profit. 

New York G. P. Putnam's Sons London 



The Public Prosecutor 
of the Terror 

Fouquier-Tinville 

By Alphonse Dunoyer 

Based upon documents in the National Archives of 
France 

S°. With IS Illustrations. $3,75 net 
By mail, $4,00 

Fouquier-Tinville was one of the most potent and 
sinister personalities under the Reign of Terror. His 
activities, influence, and downfall are all part of an 
intensely dramatic career. 

He was the Public Prosecutor under the Terror. He 
denounced and brought to the scaffold no fewer than 
2400 victims, ranging from Marie Antoinette to Robes- 
pierre and St. Just. He was "falsely true" to his ofiice 
and Hke many another bloody rascal fulfilled his villainies 
in the idea that by so doing he was realizing his duty. 
He was genuinely surprised when he himself was de- 
nounced, arraigned, and condemned — he was furious 
when the judgment of death was passed upon him — and 
he believed himself to be a victim of duty and a sacrifice 
for his country. It is a curious psychological spectacle 
very admirably exhibited. 

So, too, with that other side of the picture that is 
shown, the ghastly results of this tyranny of the people, 
the mean system of spjdng — by means of montreurs who 
inveigled prisoners into confessions which brought them- 
selves and their friends to the guillotine; the haphazard, 
indifferent ways in which men and women were brought 
to death, many an innocent man being trapped because 
he had the same name as another; the heartless way in 
which women enceintes were hurried to the scaffold before 
or after they had passed their pains. A real contribution 
to the history of this period, based on original and 
unpubHshed documents. 

New York G. P. Putnam's Sons London 



By Clare Jerrold 
The Married Life of Queen Victoria 

8°. Frontispiece and 16 Other Illustrations 
$3.75 net. By mail, $4.00 

Mrs. Jerrold carries a stage further the interesting 
study of Queen Victoria's life, which she began in The 
Early Court of Queen Victoria. She endeavors to tell the 
real truth regarding the Queen's married life and her 
relations with the Prince Consort, and in so doing relies 
on their own recorded actions and words rather than 
upon the highly colored and in many cases exaggerated 
pictures presented in the past. 

The relations of the Queen and Prince with those 
around them, with their children and with their ministers 
— especially their hatred and fear of Palmerston — their 
love for Louis-Philippe, for the German Confederation, 
and their complacency towards Russia are all dealt with 
and throw a strong new light upon the English Court 
during the years in which Prince Albert was virtually 
King. 

The Rarly Court of Queen Victoria 

8°. With 17 Illustrations. $5.75 net. Byniail$4.00 

An intimate and entertaining account of the upbring- 
ing, accession, and early reign of Victoria and of the 
historic figures that administered at her court functions 
and that played with the game of empire. The volume 
bristles with gossip. Many curious anecdotes have been 
culled from the diaries and letters of contemporaries 
and scathing extracts affecting not only Victoria's Court, 
but the royal family and even the Queen herself, have 
been taken from the press of the time. The narrative, 
while abounding in episode, is organic in development 
and unfolds a dramatic story. In addition to the courtly 
aspects of Victoria's reign, the author pays attention to 
the Queen's domestic life and her participation in the 
affairs of state. 

New York G. P. Putnam's Sons London 



**JI:n invaluable addition to the literary 
and social history of the period." 

The Diaries of 

William Charles Macready 
1833-1851 

Edited by William Charles Toynbee 

Author of " Vignettes of the Regency " 

8'^, 2 vols, With 49 fullfpage Illustrations 
$7,50 net, Carriage 50 cts. 

This exceedingly valuable and interesting personal 
record of the stage career of one of the greatest of actors 
contains a great deal of material hitherto withheld from 
publication. In a style full of candor, though at times 
sharply caustic after the manner of his day, the author 
speaks of the stage rivals and illustrious contemporaries 
with whom he came into clash. But if he does not spare 
others, he is critical of himself, too. When he turns the 
search-light on his own character, he does so with firmness 
of purpose. His enthusiasms as well as his prejudices 
reveal the make-up of the man, with atoning features 
of heart and mind to offset the occasional outbursts of 
rancor in which he indulges and the perversities of 
judgment of which he is guilty. 

Profoundly interesting, abounding in intimate glimpses 
qfT>ickens, Thackeray, Browning, Bulwer, and other 
Victorian Celebrities. 

G. P. Putnam's Sons 

New York London 



